Date   

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Jaice Singer DuMars
 

When I think about what the CNCF is trying to accomplish, both as an organization and curator of conferences, I see a much broader and inclusive mission. In my estimation, the CNCF is the keeper of what the Cloud Native landscape can and will be. It's not only providing the guiding architectural vision, but also the community, interoperability, and implementation stories. If CNCF is myopically focused on only those projects it stewards, then it is not fully supporting this critical moment in the evolution of technology. 

KubeCon provides a crucial touchpoint for all interested parties in the Cloud Native ecosystem (and movement) to connect and assess. And, it is the nature of vendors to anticipate customer needs, so of course there will be projects and presentations that allude to possibilities more than present abilities. By its own nature, the Cloud Native space is forward looking. If there's a key takeaway for me from this thread, and other conversations I have had, it's that a pure user conference focused on deeper, richer technical content would be well-received. I think user journies will always be a part of KubeCon, but we'd be doing a disservice to the world to only be that.  Having a compelling, comprehensive vision, as Dan and the CNCF team have done, moves everything forward. And it's that momentum that will serve everyone equally. We just need to channel the right conversations, in the right places, at the right times. Yes, we can improve, but I also think everyone is doing a good job as-is.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:01 AM Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

100% in agreement, seems like we turned KubeCon to a cool infra tech conference vs a place for people to explore working/proven solutions to build apps on top.

 

We should probably first determine which audience are we after:

  1. mega-users/vendors who build their own infra and want to know which future tech to bet on
  2. user who want build apps on top of already debugged/proven frameworks/infra

 

both options are valid, but if we put more emphasis on #1 we cannot complain why we don’t get enough “end-user” involvement, or why we get too many vendor (infra builders) submissions.

 

I stumbled into my last year’s KubeCon & AWS re:invent summary, still relevant  

https://thenewstack.io/kubecon-aws-reinvent-race-invisible-infrastructure/

 

“I couldn’t help thinking the difference between both shows was that of consumption vs. creation. AWS re:Invent was about “this is what we built and how you use it to run faster” (i.e. consumption) vs. the theme at KubeCon which was “this is how we are building it and here’s where you can download the sources” (as a community of creators).”

 

Yaron

 

From: Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 21:29
To: liz@...
Cc: ruben@...; Matt Farina <matt@...>; Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Dan Kohn <dan@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

 

C

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:

I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

 

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

 

Best,

Ruben 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

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
mattfarina.com

 

 



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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  | lizrice.com +44 (0) 780 126 1145

 

--

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145



--

Jaice Singer DuMars

Open Source Governance

+1 (206) 371-2293

601 N. 34th St., Seattle WA 98103


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...>
 

There are a few things in this discussion that are a serious concern for me.... 

vendor is being used as a pejorative here.  when we talk about vendors having outsized presences, there are also several who have very outsized *contributions* in the community (through code, docs, organizing and even full project donation).  

another concern for me is that the metrics quoted from the attendee survey was reframed from 35% of attendees listed attending sessions as their "top reason for attending" to "only a 1/3 attended for the general session technical content?"  That's not what was surveyed.  Top reason is very different from the reframe.  A conference which has ~30% expert (and speaker) attendees 30% intermediate (deeping their experience) attendees and 30% newbie attendees might well have only 30% of the attendees report session content as their *top* reason to attend the event and still be very healthy.

I do not disagree that having more user content is extraordinarily important.  However, if we want to also make the event relevant and engaging to a broad audience we have to accept that there are many reasons to attend an event such as this including collaboration with a peer group.

I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s)  or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.  

sarah

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, <ruben@...> wrote:
It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.

Best,
Ruben

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

alexis richardson
 

It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.


On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, <ruben@...> wrote:
It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.

Best,
Ruben

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
 

100% in agreement, seems like we turned KubeCon to a cool infra tech conference vs a place for people to explore working/proven solutions to build apps on top.

 

We should probably first determine which audience are we after:

  1. mega-users/vendors who build their own infra and want to know which future tech to bet on
  2. user who want build apps on top of already debugged/proven frameworks/infra

 

both options are valid, but if we put more emphasis on #1 we cannot complain why we don’t get enough “end-user” involvement, or why we get too many vendor (infra builders) submissions.

 

I stumbled into my last year’s KubeCon & AWS re:invent summary, still relevant  

https://thenewstack.io/kubecon-aws-reinvent-race-invisible-infrastructure/

 

“I couldn’t help thinking the difference between both shows was that of consumption vs. creation. AWS re:Invent was about “this is what we built and how you use it to run faster” (i.e. consumption) vs. the theme at KubeCon which was “this is how we are building it and here’s where you can download the sources” (as a community of creators).”

 

Yaron

 

From: Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 21:29
To: liz@...
Cc: ruben@...; Matt Farina <matt@...>; Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Dan Kohn <dan@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

 

C

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:

I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

 

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

 

Best,

Ruben 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

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
mattfarina.com

 

 



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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  | lizrice.com +44 (0) 780 126 1145

 

--

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.

Best,
Ruben

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Chris Aniszczyk
 

We will schedule something at KubeCon Seattle and put it on the schedule, I'll get it listed in time for the next TOC meeting and bring it up then :)

Alexis can make the call to a lot some time on Nov 6th or 20th for this, we will have a busy schedule due to CNCF project graduation/reviews as a heads up, so I would recommend to take no more than 20-30 minutes.

Also Alexis is correct, there's lots of stakeholders and there's a Marketing Committee that tends to discuss these types of event issues and I encourage you to use that avenue to if you have an organization rep that participates there: https://www.cncf.io/people/marketing-committee/


On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I'm in favour of the TOC being a focal point for a community discussion on how that community meets.  At the same time we should be conscious that cncf events have many stakeholders ie. The foundation, the sponsors, the marketing folks.  We are just one input with special focus on projects, developers and users 

Making this a meeting topic makes sense to me.

Also having f2f at kubecon is a good idea.



On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:22 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

alexis richardson
 

I'm in favour of the TOC being a focal point for a community discussion on how that community meets.  At the same time we should be conscious that cncf events have many stakeholders ie. The foundation, the sponsors, the marketing folks.  We are just one input with special focus on projects, developers and users 

Making this a meeting topic makes sense to me.

Also having f2f at kubecon is a good idea.



On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:22 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Matt Farina
 

The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)

Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?

I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?

What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?

The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







-- 
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
<KC_CNC_EU18_Report_Final-compressed.pdf>


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Matt Farina
 

Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

We might want to be careful with data about past conferences. The Cons started with many insiders. Then it was very much about cluster ops and there was regular talk about the lack of apps there. The people represented in those surveys likely do not include many segments we are interested in today. For example, to satisfy operators often does no satisfy app folks. If app folks were under represented the survey won’t be a useful guide for the future.

As far as dissatisfaction goes, the TOC email chain "Thoughts on KubeCon” showed there are a number of folks. I asked around and found more than those who were being vocal. This is what lead me to propose an agenda item.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.

Just a reminder: we have collected feedback from the last discussion on the mailing list and have collated it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/edit (encourage comments from the community to build on this doc)

re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro <shkuro@...> wrote:
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Yuri Shkuro
 

Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?


On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Matt Farina
 

I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.

Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:

  • 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.
  • Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
  • 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.

These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?

I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

alexis richardson
 

I may be mistaken, but iiuc the Knative team spent time in q2 working with many of the serverless oss projects, so that they used Knative CRDs.  That could explain the appearance of proliferation in the timeframe.

Speaking personally my concern is that Knative and istio are not cncf projects.  Perhaps we should discuss how we as a community want to showcase projects that belong to the wiser oss ecosystem around k8s, vs cncf projects.  That obviously touches on issues around vendor preference too.



On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 15:01 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Camille, that is a fantastic observation. Thanks for pointing it out.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 20, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

C

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!



On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

Best,
Ruben 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
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
mattfarina.com



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Matt Farina
 

Camille, that is a fantastic observation. Thanks for pointing it out.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 20, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

C

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!



On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

Best,
Ruben 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
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
mattfarina.com



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

Precisely. This is what some of us are getting at. And to reiterate not all that different than having a *whole track* for Istio in Kovnhavn while Istio was still nascent. In fact, much less mature than other alternatives in the market at the time. And somehow we’re to believe the market had made its mind in a few short months that Istio was the one and true way to do service meshes and such? 

To be clear I’m not trying to be accusatory, just positing that mega vendors know how to throw their wight around to influence outcomes at the cost of smaller competitors being overshadowed. And there should definitely be mechanisms/short-circuit to prevent this sort of gaming of the system.

Best,
Ruben

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:29 PM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

C

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!



On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

Best,
Ruben 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
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
mattfarina.com



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
 

This is a good idea. DevOpsDays KC is a single track, so we have different concerns, but we run a series of lightening talks where we often put things that are less pertinent but still need exposure like some newer technologies. I think that many is a little too much at once, but having a few of those sprinkled throughout would probably be helpful in many ways beyond what’s been discussed so far.

 

Dan Barker

Chief Architect

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

1100 Walnut St. Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106

816-783-8669

 

From: Eduardo Silva <eduardo@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 1:45 PM
To: Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
Cc: mike@...; i-suzuki@...; alessandro.vozza@...; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>; natasha.riabova@...; jamie.dobson@...; feigal@...; Pini Reznik <pini.reznik@...>; gianrubio@...; fahd.ekadioin@...
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.

maybe a bit off-topic idea but I would like to share it for the next CloudNativeCon:

I see the need of developers and vendors to showcase the projects they are working on, despite the motivations like fix a real problem, promote an open source emergent technology(for them)  or validate an idea, what about if we offer in the Keynotes a main space where these "projects" can be shown in a few slides through a lightning talk mode ?. 

 

Think about a block of 1.5 hour in the morning to showcase 15 projects for 3-5 minutes each one. I think this could be very valuable for the attendees, companies involved and the ecosystem in general (and yes, this might impact paid keynote sessions).

 

just my 5c.

 

regards, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...> wrote:

I’m an organizer in KC, and we do many things to get better submissions. We still have a lot of areas where we can improve, though. We reach out to other local meetups and communities and promote our CFP. We offer personalized coaching for those who need it prior to the close of the CFP so submitters can provide their best version. We also advertise our CFP similar to how we advertise for our ticket sales. We accept sponsor submissions, but they have no relation to sponsorship or organizer affiliation. DevOpsDays Core offers a centralized website which drives sponsorships, cfp submissions, and ticket sales through a common brand. I know the local k8s cloud native organizer, and he’d probably be in for something like this.

 

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 Mike Long
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:03 AM
To: Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...>
Cc: alessandro.vozza@...; cncf-toc@...; Natasha Riabova <natasha.riabova@...>; Jamie Dobson <jamie.dobson@...>; Matthew Feigal <feigal@...>; Pini Reznik <pini.reznik@...>; Giancarlo Rubio <gianrubio@...>; Fahd Ekadioin <fahd.ekadioin@...>
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.

Hi,

 

I wonder if we might want to look at a similar setup as devopsdays?  

 

It is organized by local groups, and the rules are quite simple and fair.  It must be organized by a committee from various companies, it is not for profit, and the sponsorship rules avoid it turning into a sale farce.

 

Best regards,

Mike


____________________________________________________________

Mike Long 
Chief Technology Officer 

mike@... 
+47 48 67 63 60 
Praqma.com 
Praqma Oslo 


 

 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...> wrote:

Hello, 

 

Sounds like a lot of value packed within a single day!

By any chance, how can we plan for something similar to be held in Tokyo?  

There are container focused events held here, and some are gathering 300~400 people in one room. 

 

Ippei 

 

 

On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:42 AM, alessandro via Lists.Cncf.Io <alessandro.vozza=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

 

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!

 

 

Sent from my mobile


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

 

Also an option, of course.

 

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place

last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly

affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small

and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have

to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------- 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@....


 

--

Eduardo Silva

Open Source, Treasure Data

http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 

----------------------------------------- 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@....


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Eduardo Silva
 

maybe a bit off-topic idea but I would like to share it for the next CloudNativeCon:

I see the need of developers and vendors to showcase the projects they are working on, despite the motivations like fix a real problem, promote an open source emergent technology(for them)  or validate an idea, what about if we offer in the Keynotes a main space where these "projects" can be shown in a few slides through a lightning talk mode ?. 

Think about a block of 1.5 hour in the morning to showcase 15 projects for 3-5 minutes each one. I think this could be very valuable for the attendees, companies involved and the ecosystem in general (and yes, this might impact paid keynote sessions).

just my 5c.

regards, 






On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...> wrote:

I’m an organizer in KC, and we do many things to get better submissions. We still have a lot of areas where we can improve, though. We reach out to other local meetups and communities and promote our CFP. We offer personalized coaching for those who need it prior to the close of the CFP so submitters can provide their best version. We also advertise our CFP similar to how we advertise for our ticket sales. We accept sponsor submissions, but they have no relation to sponsorship or organizer affiliation. DevOpsDays Core offers a centralized website which drives sponsorships, cfp submissions, and ticket sales through a common brand. I know the local k8s cloud native organizer, and he’d probably be in for something like this.

 

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 Mike Long
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:03 AM
To: Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...>
Cc: alessandro.vozza@...; cncf-toc@...; Natasha Riabova <natasha.riabova@...>; Jamie Dobson <jamie.dobson@...>; Matthew Feigal <feigal@...>; Pini Reznik <pini.reznik@...>; Giancarlo Rubio <gianrubio@...>; Fahd Ekadioin <fahd.ekadioin@...>
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.

Hi,

 

I wonder if we might want to look at a similar setup as devopsdays?  

 

It is organized by local groups, and the rules are quite simple and fair.  It must be organized by a committee from various companies, it is not for profit, and the sponsorship rules avoid it turning into a sale farce.

 

Best regards,

Mike


____________________________________________________________

Mike Long 
Chief Technology Officer 

mike@... 
+47 48 67 63 60 
Praqma.com 
Praqma Oslo 


 

 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...> wrote:

Hello, 

 

Sounds like a lot of value packed within a single day!

By any chance, how can we plan for something similar to be held in Tokyo?  

There are container focused events held here, and some are gathering 300~400 people in one room. 

 

Ippei 

 



On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:42 AM, alessandro via Lists.Cncf.Io <alessandro.vozza=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

 

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!

 

 

Sent from my mobile


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

 

Also an option, of course.

 

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place

last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly

affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small

and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have

to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).

 

 



 

 

----------------------------------------- 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@....



--
Eduardo Silva
Open Source, Treasure Data
http://www.treasuredata.com/opensource

 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
 

I’m an organizer in KC, and we do many things to get better submissions. We still have a lot of areas where we can improve, though. We reach out to other local meetups and communities and promote our CFP. We offer personalized coaching for those who need it prior to the close of the CFP so submitters can provide their best version. We also advertise our CFP similar to how we advertise for our ticket sales. We accept sponsor submissions, but they have no relation to sponsorship or organizer affiliation. DevOpsDays Core offers a centralized website which drives sponsorships, cfp submissions, and ticket sales through a common brand. I know the local k8s cloud native organizer, and he’d probably be in for something like this.

 

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 Mike Long
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:03 AM
To: Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...>
Cc: alessandro.vozza@...; cncf-toc@...; Natasha Riabova <natasha.riabova@...>; Jamie Dobson <jamie.dobson@...>; Matthew Feigal <feigal@...>; Pini Reznik <pini.reznik@...>; Giancarlo Rubio <gianrubio@...>; Fahd Ekadioin <fahd.ekadioin@...>
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.

Hi,

 

I wonder if we might want to look at a similar setup as devopsdays?  

 

It is organized by local groups, and the rules are quite simple and fair.  It must be organized by a committee from various companies, it is not for profit, and the sponsorship rules avoid it turning into a sale farce.

 

Best regards,

Mike


____________________________________________________________

Mike Long 
Chief Technology Officer 

mike@... 
+47 48 67 63 60 
Praqma.com 
Praqma Oslo 


 

 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...> wrote:

Hello, 

 

Sounds like a lot of value packed within a single day!

By any chance, how can we plan for something similar to be held in Tokyo?  

There are container focused events held here, and some are gathering 300~400 people in one room. 

 

Ippei 

 



On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:42 AM, alessandro via Lists.Cncf.Io <alessandro.vozza=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

 

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!

 

 

Sent from my mobile


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

 

Also an option, of course.

 

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place

last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly

affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small

and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have

to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).

 

 



 

 

----------------------------------------- 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@....


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Camille Fournier
 

I realize I'm chiming in late here but something has been bothering me about this for a while: it is very strange that most of the submissions for this track were for a technology that was announced in late July. That is really strange! The cfp closed in mid August, so we're supposed to believe that in the span of two weeks all the sudden the whole industry decided that knative was the one true serverless model? What? I realize the project did not begin in July (looks like most dev started in Feb), but this seems like a calculated vendor/project participant push given the extreme newness of the project, and incredibly suspicious.

C


On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:
Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!



On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

Best,
Ruben 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
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
mattfarina.com



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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

--
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com+44 (0) 780 126 1145


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

816-783-8669

 

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
mattfarina.com

 

 



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:

Dan,

 

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 ?

 

Yaron

 

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  | lizrice.com | +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@....

4981 - 5000 of 7546