Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>

This is interesting data. I found the track selection a bit confusing actually. I submitted a session about my experience as an end-user involved in the CloudEvents WG trying to help drive out some of the immaturity and inconsistency in the space, but I don’t remember which track I put it in. I was going to cover some of the technical details, but also how to get involved and help drive some of this change in the community. I remember the text limit being an issue. What I’m really surprised about is that there isn’t a CloudEvents session in the serverless track with so many great members of that WG.


Overall, I’m looking forward to the event and am thankful for the impressive effort of the organizers. We go through a couple hundred submissions at most for the conference I organize, so I can’t imagine the scale of KubeCon.


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 Matt Farina
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 12:46 PM
To: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Cc: Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Dan Kohn <dan@...>; 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.

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.




Matt Farina



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:



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 ?




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:




Liz Rice

@lizrice  | | +44 (0) 780 126 1145


----------------------------------------- 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.