Re: Thoughts on KubeCon


Geri Jennings
 

+1 on improving the CFP by providing more space for submitters to write a more detailed abstract. In the interest of keeping abstracts shorter (if this is a concern for conference programs) you might add an additional section for a “talk description” that can provide more details to the abstract reviewers on what the talk will contain and how it fits within the larger context of the conference.

Geri Jennings

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Puja Abbassi <puja@...>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:51 AM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

+1, improving the CFP itself should be prio 1 (or 0). As Yuan Chen also mentioned above this is what many of us who had touch points with academia are used to and this is the very basis for being able to judge blindly at all. They also mentioned good practices for CFP that would help with increasing quality of submissions.

With the current character limits it is almost impossible to judge a talk based on this alone. Speakers are trying to get around this by spreading talk info throughout "abstract", "benefit to the community", and their "bio", which results in sub-optimal entries for the program. Here the abstract shown in the program could be separate from the actual talk submission, so it can be a real teaser for the talk.


_______________________________________________
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error.

Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.