Re: Thoughts on KubeCon
|
Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
liz,
its not the number of submission which should count, i guess if "theoretically" there was a large company w special interest in Knative they can make hundred submission to promote it.
We saw the same phenomena in EU, some companies rule the agenda, making it hard for smaller members to demonstrate their innovation. some of the sessions i attended you could easily see that the driving decision wasn't how qualified the speaker was or how interesting/relevant
the session.
Matt, BTW you left out nuclio serverless platform
From: Matthew Farina
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
To: Liz Rice
Cc: Yaron Haviv, Dan Kohn, CNCF TOC
Liz, thanks for sharing those details. I know this is a tough job. Thanks for putting up with this extra work of the questioning and people poking at the ideas here. Anything I’m suggesting is more about clarifying for future conferences and trying to be explicit
where we may not have been before.
I completely understand the desire to identify hot technologies. With 2/3 of the proposed talks on one technology it speaks to a level of hotness.
But, there are a couple other ways to look at this situation…
First, there is as a track attendee. 4 of 6 presentations on the same technology is not exciting and does not give me a diverse view. For someone not in the know it gives the impression that the space is not very diverse and that the main piece of technology
is “work-in-progress” (the label on knative). Is this the impression we want conference attendees to have?
Second, there is from the perspective of people proposing sessions.
For Kubernetes there are currently numerous serverless technologies including, but not limited to:
knativeOpenFaaSKubelessFissionBrigadeVirtual Kubelet (works with serverless containers like ACI, Fargate, etc but is not FaaS)
Jupyter bills itself as a web application and notebook. It’s getting a lot of buzz but I’ve not heard of it being billed as Serverless.
There are also tools like serverless that can work with numerous technologies including kubeless (on this list) that are workflow solutions.
In addition there are things the CNCF serverless working group has been working on like cloudevents (which has an intro and deep dive out of band from the serverless track).
The serverless track then has 4 of 6 session on knative, 1 of 6 on something else (Jupyter), and sessions on other serverless technologies being rejected.
Can we all see how decisions here could be interpreted with malicious intent and how it could put a negative view on the conference and decision making process? Whether it happened that way or not, people could come to malicious conclusions.
This all leads me to other questions...
Do we want end-user presentations in this space? Since knative is hot but not ready for production some other technology would be used by them. But, it’s useful today and not “hot”. How do we encourage end-users to present here? Is “hot” or useful today more
important?
Is a goal diversity? If so, mirroring presentations with only those that are hot doesn’t provide for diversity.
If some of the intent and goal components could be ironed out it would help future decision makers.
--
Matt Farina
|
|
|