1. Messages
  2. Thoughts on KubeCon

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
 

As an end-user, I submitted several this year that weren’t accepted, and I don’t have a team of people to make it sound great, and I don’t speak at a lot of conferences in order to know exactly how to create a proposal. I run a conference, and I have seen some of these vendor submissions that are identical to what has been submitted to all other conferences and they often sound amazing. Listening to vendors give me an idyllic vision provides me no real value, and that isn’t why I would want to attend KubeCon. Some vendors are certainly better than others and some stock presentations are engaging, but I find I rarely learn much. My preference is for real-world examples or in-depth theory presentations. I don’t attend vendor conferences because they are highly biased, uninformative, and primarily marketing driven. I’ll just watch the webinar or a YouTube video.

 

Dan Barker

Chief Architect

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

1100 Walnut St. Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106

816-783-8669

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 7:12 PM
To: Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please remember that "vendors" are also in many cases the primary contributors to CNCF projects. 

 

I talked to one of the co-chairs. There are vastly more talks submitted by project contributors than by end users. Perhaps that should be an ask to our end-user community -- submit more talks.

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:59 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

 

One per vendor might be too acute, as some vendors are doing much more than others.  But having some system that limits the number of submissions per vendor (and therefore force the vendors to adopt some process to determine their best submissions) would probably help -- and would also help address the too-low acceptance rate...

 

        - Bryan

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:54 AM Anthony Skipper <anthony@...> wrote:

I would agree with double blind.  But a max of 1 talk per vendor might also go a long way. 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:47 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

 

On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing.  My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry:

 

 

Something that I probably didn't highlight well enough in there is Kathryn McKinley's excellent piece on double-blind review:

 

 

There are certainly lots of ways to attack this problem, but I view double-blind as an essential piece -- but probably not sufficient on its own.

 

         - Bryan

----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and any attachments are from the NAIC and are intended only for the addressee. Information contained herein is confidential, and may be privileged or exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable federal or state law. This message is not intended as a waiver of the confidential, privileged or exempted status of the information transmitted. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or by forwarding it to the NAIC Service Desk at help@....
Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.