Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>

As an organiser of various conferences (and as someone who didn't get a
talk accepted at KubeCon this year), can I just point out that Liz and
Janet have done a fantastic job in orchestrating something as complex as
this, and I want to thank them for this.

As much as I like to contribute via reviewing, I certainly don’t envy
the chairs and no matter how rude certain people on this thread are or
think it’s OK to use whatever tone they feel entitled to, first and
foremost I have 100% trust in the chairs to carry out their duties in
an objective manner.


Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate
OpenShift by Red Hat
Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas |

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Bryant <db@...>
Reply: Daniel Bryant <db@...>
Date: 10 October 2018 at 10:50:59
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

As an organiser of various conferences (and as someone who didn't get a
talk accepted at KubeCon this year), can I just point out that Liz and
Janet have done a fantastic job in orchestrating something as complex as
this, and I want to thank them for this.

I feel that some of the mails on this list are making quite strong
accusations without much evidence or understanding of the process, and not
only does this dilute the feedback process, but it is also potentially
making the task of recruiting (and being) a co-chair much less appealing
for future events.

With the sheer volume of players (vendors, communities and individuals) in
the CNCF space, the creation of a conference program truly is a *complex*
problem, and clearly not everyone will be happy with the result.

I personally would be keen to see a public retrospective of the conference,
but this should be done after the event, and take in attendee feedback as
the highest priority. Questions like "what topics were missing at KubeCon?"
and "did you see all the technologies you expected?" will provide answers
more indicative than all of us trying to guess whether the selected talks
are representative of what the community wants to see.

Best wishes,


On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:19 PM Matt Farina wrote:

Liz, I appreciate you’re taking time here with more details.

I want to note a difference between malicious intent and people drawing
conclusions of it. Those are different people in different situations. I,
personally, don’t think you had any malicious intent. I can see how some
might draw the conclusion, though. I can only imagine what intent people
drew from my decisions in the past. That’s why I keep thinking with a
forward eye.

Matt, BTW you left out nuclio serverless platform
I said including because I’m sure I missed more than one serverless
platform. There are oh so many of them right now.

Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one
submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad
interest to the community.

There different types of people with different goals. Lots of submissions
means there’s are people, vendors in our case, who want to talk about
something to users. But, does that mean it’s useful material for the
end-users? Should end-users get to see the diversity?

I note the vendors here because Dan shared details on how few percent of
end-users even submitted to the conference. On the whole the general
sessions are vendors.

One of the Knative talks is an end-user story from T-Mobile
I really want to see if “work in progress” software is being used by
T-Mobile in production. I’m curious now :)

Kubeless was mentioned in two abstracts, one of which is an accepted
talk and the other really didn't get a great score.

Can you point me to the session on this? Searching the schedule for
kubeless turned up speaders with it in their bios but not in the sessions
themselves. I’m curious to see what we have and what track that landed on.

just for stats, for the ServerlessNYC event in 2 weeks (1 day we
we got about 50 submission, only 2 on Knative (one accepted)
What does this say about CloudNativeCon and it’s interaction with
developers and the outside world (where the end-users are)? Are our
submissions too much on our island of ideas and topics?

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?
This is a wonderful question. Consider the room of attendees going to this
track. If they don’t hear about other options will they ever try them?
Should that room full of attendees hear about a diverse set of solutions?

Back to this question, in practice presentations at conferences like this
can have an impact. That’s part of the reason why there was a push for
knative sessions here.

To circle back to something Dan said,

The reality is than an organization like CNCF has many constituencies,
including our members, the TOC, our project maintainers, our end users,
developers considering using or contributing to our projects, and others.
knative is really an interesting case for this system. It’s not a CNCF
project. Does that mean it’s not one of our projects when our is the CNCF?
That means having so much of it isn’t in support of our project maintainers
or of getting devs to consider using or contributing to our projects… right?

It’s work in progress rather than being released so it’s not ready for
most end-users. There are alternative solutions that are 1.0 released and
ready for production. So, how does knative benefit end-users this year at
the con?

Yet, a group of vendors is pushing it to make it hot.

Just thinking out loud. knative is a really good test to think out loud on.

Matt Farina

Join to automatically receive all group messages.