I'm going to say that I agree with you here, but I'm going to
play devil's advocate for just a moment.
Let's say that JaneSchmoeNativeTool IS better than GNativeTool.
Even if Jane Schmoe DOES get a talk at Kubecon, will it really
make a difference to adoption under these circumstances?
Not saying we don't have a problem, just saying that KubeCon
talks are a necessary, but not sufficient solution.
---- Nick
On 10/9/2018 3:21 PM, Ruben Orduz
wrote:
For the sake of my point let's remove "Google"
altogether and replace with "HugeVendor" not to be pointing
fingers since they are doing what any vendor would do in their
position of influence.
HugeVendor invests/works on GNativeTool. They push it hard
through their marketing channels (developer and otherwise),
get 5K github stars just by inertia, suddenly you have a large
number of people submitting talks about it to all conferences.
Meanwhile JaneSchmoe, inc. has been quietly working hard on
her version of NativeTool for years and since she has neither
the marketing budget nor the acumen to pull the market one way
or the other, her product is less "popular" while perhaps
having the upper hand in terms of technical and business
value.
My point is not that HugeVendor is submitting an inordinate
amount of proposals about a particular tech, what I'm saying
is they have the gravitas and the market power to blow
everything else out of the water and the committees are
perceiving that as actual community adoption/opinion.
Best,
Ruben
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM Liz Rice < liz@...>
wrote:
Only four of the submissions on Knative were from
Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people
are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to
my point that a lot of people (and not just from one
company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this
moment in time it's of broad interest to the community.
I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but
it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that
aren't submitted!
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz
< ruben@...> wrote:
I'm aware this is a bit a political
minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are
unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon
EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a
topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and
shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are
working on will get much more traction than a competing
tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of
this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to
Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven
technology on the field and far from production-ready
for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech
is more stable before deploying it. Several other
service meshy-techs felt shunned by this.
I'm getting the same feeling about knative here.
Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it,
it was perceived as a good gauge of community
interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it
so that's no surprise.
I would posit we need to be more careful to
unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity,
specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of
marketing power and community outreach among
competitors in any given tech.
Best,
Ruben
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt
Farina < matt@...>
wrote:
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:
- knative
- OpenFaaS
- Kubeless
- Fission
- Brigade
- Virtual 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.
On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Liz Rice < liz@...>
wrote:
Matt,
thank you for your thoughtful response. I
like your list and your focus on identifying
solutions for things that need to be
improved.
Yaron, by my very quick reckoning in a
rather complicated spreadsheet: of ~60
submissions under Serverless, ~40 of them
mentioned Knative. If number of
submissions has some rough correlation to
"what the community is currently
interested in" (and I believe it does)
then Knative is currently very hot, and we
have tried to reflect this in the agenda.
There's actually a seventh talk from the
Serverless list that we accepted into the
Observability track because we felt it
straddled both topics.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:15
PM Yaron Haviv < yaronh@...>
wrote:
Dan,
looking at the
schedule, the fact that out of total
6 sessions in the Serverless track
there are 4
talks about Knative raises
a serious question about the bias of
this process
how come the only
other two sessions are on OpenFaaS
and Jupyter (serverless? really)
and other efforts in the space are
left in the cold ?
Yaron
From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On
Behalf Of Dan
Kohn
Sent: Monday,
October 8, 2018 23:35
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re:
[cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
Here is a
summary of the discussion so
far:
--
--
--
Nick Chase, Head of Technical and Marketing Content, Mirantis
Editor in Chief, Open Cloud Digest
Author, Machine Learning for Mere Mortals
|
