Not sure I can make the next meeting, but my thoughts on some of these:
> Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/ > sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A > non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
Yes. If a non-CNCF project can get intro and deep-dive sessions then it lessens the need to be a CNCF project - and I think waters down our branding. How will we decide which non-CNCF projects to allow to use of "valuable" rooms and time-slots that could go to more breakout sessions of CNCF projects?
> Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on > the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. > This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same > sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
I think if we adopt some of the "blind" CFP reviews that's been discussed then we shouldn't need to enforce these kinds of limits. If one company dominates then its due to the content of their CFPs - and therefore they deserve it (hopefully). I think that trying to limit on a per company basis (while it might feel good to some) will just encourage game playing in the CFP process - e.g. put some other company as lead presenter (if we even have that concept) due to who submitted the CFP. Or put another way - let's do the "blind" CFP reviews first to see how that plays out, and if we're still not happy with results then we can explore the next "baby step" which might be to limit sessions per vendor. I'd just prefer to take it slow and not swing the pendulum too far too quickly on this one.
