The point of double-blind is not to increase diversity, it is to improve quality. Turns out bias leads people to select based on things other than the quality of the work.

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

Quinton Hoole wrote:> I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection notices > to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too much > marketing pitch”, “not open

I agree with Alena that single blind may make the most sense for Kubecon. Academic venues that use double blind usually do so (in part) to try to cut down on nepotism, etc. The acknowledged loss is

No I mean, of the total number of submissions made by end users, what percentage were accepted? Given that the overall rate was 13%

I'm not sure going with double blind for Kubecon talk submissions is a good idea. In academic conferences, the paper itself is a good enough justification as it includes all the information needed to

27.8% of talks are from end users. https://kccna18.sched.com/ -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io +1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

It could also help if there was an option for a session with a sponsorship. We were told no when asked and after we missed the submission deadline. It wasn’t clear if there are other options for us

What percentage of end user talks were accepted?

Please remember that "vendors" are also in many cases the primary contributors to CNCF projects. I talked to one of the co-chairs. There are vastly more talks submitted by project contributors than

I think it's important that tactical measures (e.g., double-blind, vendor talk limits, etc.) should be in the service of a general goal. IMO the first responsibility of conference organizers is to the

I recognize that it's not always that cut-and-dried, BTW; I've been on the selection team for several conferences and sometimes it's just a matter of "there were 10 slots and you ranked #11". But not

"Quinton Hoole" <quinton.hoole@...> wrote: > I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection > notices to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too > much

+1

+1

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,