Thanks for the insightful and thought-provoking blog post Bryan. I missed the call yesterday, but co-incidentally had been noodling with similar thoughts recently, as, anecdotally, I’m also not

I was a reviewer for both China and North America this year, and a double-blind academia reviewer earlier in life. I sent some feedback to the program committee which mostly echoed Brian's blog

+1 Best Regards, Shannon Williams +1 (650) 521-6902 shannon@... On Oct 3, 2018, at 11:54 AM, Anthony Skipper <anthony@...> wrote:

One per vendor might be too acute, as some vendors are doing much more than others. But having some system that limits the number of submissions per vendor (and therefore force the vendors to adopt

This has useful context for how talks are selected: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/05/29/get-your-kubecon-talk-accepted/ At a high level, the Intro/Deep Dive tracks are separate from the CFP tracks,

If we talk about vendor limits should we exclude SIG specific and project specific sessions? That is the intros and deep dives. That gives some orgs high numbers (like 18 of the vendor who has 41). Do

Even a max of 3-5 from one vendor would be a significant difference from the 68 from one company, 41 from another.... ---- Nick On 10/3/2018 2:54 PM, Anthony Skipper

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

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

thanks Michael, good write up. I really like the overall thinking here. We are not raising the bar for adoption, but we are asking for clarity of thought and planning for early projects. That will

To add a bit of color on the Falco Sandbox proposal and presentation. I started with the proposal document first because I felt that the problem we were trying to solve may not necessarily be well

Camille, If we are looking for prior art to build templates on, the ASF incubator has a template [1], examples of proposals are at [2][3]. I like the sections in there on why the project wants to

I agree requiring the writing up front (instead of after the presentation) can be useful, here are some good examples imho: Falco

Chris pointed out in chat that groups already are writing up docs for their proposals. However, the problem in my mind is that first we see a slide deck style presentation, then it is followed by a

I’ll be boarding a plane at 8AM, so I probably won’t be on the call today. Q Quinton Hoole Technical Vice President America Research Center 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA

I won't have time to listen in on the call, but I like what I am seeing. Thanks Alexis and everyone else.

I have updated the Agenda

Hi all Apologies, there will be an updated Agenda tomorrow. Want to discuss some TOC business. Will be asking project presentations to go on hold Alexis

Here's the agenda deck for tomorrow: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Xt1xNSN8_pGuDLl5H8xEYToFss7VoIm7GBG0e_HrsLc/edit?ts=5bae170b#slide=id.g25ca91f87f_0_0 We will be hearing from the keycloak

+1 (non-binding)