Re: Thoughts on KubeCon


Aparna Sinha
 

A double blind process of review combined with a more complete paper submission (instead of a short abstract) would ensure standards similar to those in academia - which is a known system, and for many, the expected process for such reviews.

Having come from academia, I was surprised to see the process we have been following. I've served as a reviewer for Kubecon and found that the abstracts were insufficiently detailed to be evaluated. While we reject many such abstracts, I think having a higher bar on the submission would spare that effort and discourage submissions that are half baked.  [ In some cases, I reviewed submissions where the author simply requested a talk without providing any content! ]  It is also unneccessary for the authors to be identifiable. 

Kubecon has turned out well despite the process largely as a result of the amazing work of the conference chairs. The current process relies heavily on having chairs that understand the needs of the community, and are investing the time to put together a compelling program. This isn't efficient and has the potential to be unfair.  Given the strong interest and volume of submissions, requiring a 1-2 page paper instead of an abstracts seems reasonable and will raise the bar while reducing reviewer / chair burden. 

- Aparna

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
Here is a summary of the discussion so far:




--
Aparna Sinha
Group Product Manager
Kubernetes

650-283-6086 (m)

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