Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>

DevOps Enterprise Summit asks about a lot of transformation related details. We may want to do that as well since many of the end-users are likely using these tools to help move their legacy infrastructure in unique and challenging ways. They’re likely using a lot of the tools in ways that others will appreciate and mimic but may not be what the vendor intended.


Dan Barker

Chief Architect

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

1100 Walnut St. Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106



From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Yuan Chen
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:03 PM
To: Bob Wise <bob@...>; alena@...
Cc: Dan Kohn <dan@...>; skamille@...; Brian Grant <briangrant@...>; bryan@...; CNCF TOC <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.

I second that. As someone who has had a long history with CS academic conferences (as both a reviewer and author), I was really surprised by the fact that we only needed to write a very short abstract (up to 900 characters)! I was wondering how a reviewer could make a decision based on such limited information.


Also, as the effort required to write a proposal was not that much, there were a larger number of submissions. To me, the quality or outcome (those accepted proposals) should matter most, not the number of submissions.


Interestingly, we were asked to provide a lot of information about our background and experience. I couldn’t help thinking the reviewers care more about an author’s background and experience than the submission itself.


Would it be helpful to try something like an extended abstract, which can provide more information and technical content? We can use a template (e.g., problem statement, solution and results), maybe 1-2 pages.


Also, I would like to have received feedbacks on my submissions.






Principal Architect, Infrastructure Silicon Valley R&D Center


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 7:50 PM
To: "alena@..." <alena@...>
Cc: Dan Kohn <dan@...>, "skamille@..." <skamille@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, "bryan@..." <bryan@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon


Since the number of submissions is really high, might be ok to require a more in-depth submission to provide enough context for the double-blind assessment. Fewer but better submissions seems like it would be a fine tradeoff.


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:36 PM Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:

I'm not sure going with double blind for Kubecon talk submissions is a good idea. In academic conferences, the paper itself is a good enough justification as it includes all the information needed to make a fair judgement. Kubecon submissions are short abstracts, and can't be judged the same way. Speaker's presentation skills, the projects he/she is involved in, the presentations given in the past should be taken into consideration. Unless we ask to include slides and transcript of the presentation as a part of the submission, there is not enough basis to do double blind voting.


A disclaimer: some of my talks were accepted to kubecon, some were rejected. As a speaker (and I don't consider myself to be a particularly good one) I'd really like to know the reasons behind both decisions.


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 5:29:27 PM
To: Camille Fournier
Cc: Brian Grant; Bryan Cantrell; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:14 PM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

What percentage of end user talks were accepted?


27.8% of talks are from end users.



Dan Kohn <dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation


----------------------------------------- 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 to automatically receive all group messages.