Re: Thoughts on KubeCon
Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
just for stats, for the ServerlessNYC event in 2 weeks (1 day we organized) we got about 50 submission, only 2 on Knative (one accepted)
also while most submissions covered real user stories based on experience, those two were entirely Theoretical
this further emphasize that the current decision criteria favor some big pocket companies, and KC users are less likely to to learn about other proven or more innovative approaches without the same marketing/brand power
From: Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:43:09 PM
To: Matt Farina
Cc: Liz Rice; Yaron Haviv; Dan Kohn; CNCF TOC
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
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.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote: