I think it's disconcerting (if somewhat comical) that the concern that the ideas shared here would get rebuttals -- a concern that I and I think many members of the TOC also likely share -- itself got a rebuttal.  I think the discussion here is terrific, but I am concerned that the tone from the CNCF seems to be more of trying to explain how these concerns either aren't real concerns or are already being addressed.  I hope that staff is hearing that there is broad consensus that change is needed -- and that this should be embraced as a positive and natural consequence of the popularity of both the technologies and the conference rather than something to be resisted or explained away.

In particular: I very much share the concern about the length limit imposed by the CFP.  900 characters is absurdly short (the "3 tweet" characterization is apt); a 900 word limit would be much more reasonable.  I also share the concern about the dividing up of the proposal between "abstract" and "benefit to the community" and so on; a good abstract should contain everything that is needed to evaluate it -- and that evaluation criteria should be clearly spelled out.  By encouraging longer, more comprehensive abstracts, you will be encouraging better written ones -- which will give the PC a better basis for being double-blind in early rounds.  As a concrete step, I might encourage a group to be drawn up that consists of folks that have experience in both KubeCon, in other practitioner conferences, and in academic conferences (a few of whom have already identified themselves on this thread!); I think that their broad perspective is invaluable.

         - Bryan