The CNCF site notes: "The Cloud Native Computing Foundation builds sustainable ecosystems and fosters a community around a constellation of high-quality projects that orchestrate containers as part of

I agree with the need for coaching of end users. I actually sent an email last night that I thought was to the list, but didn't reply to the group. One of the problems with soliciting talks from end

Meetups are nice but not at all a substitute for a good end-user focused conference, so let's please not conflate the two things.

Thanks for pointing those out. As Dan mentioned, it's on the agenda for 2019 to support some smaller more regional events in new geos. Currently we encourage folks to start a join an existing meetup,

Has anyone looked at the WordCamp model for local conferences? They are somewhere in between a KubeCon and a meetup. There are several benefits to this model like: They are local and can be on work

It's great to hear there's support for more end user talks, since I joined the CNCF to increase end user engagement and satisfaction. End user talks will be one of my key metrics, and I'm very keen to

+1 end users often struggle to make their talks as appealing as the “real ones”. Coaching here will help. -- +31 652134960 CEO www.implicit-explicit.com Co-Founder www.softwarecircus.io Marketing

+1, great idea

There seems to be a recognition that more real-world / end user / practitioner talks would be good, because we don't want an echo chamber of ideas. One suggestion would be to provide more support &

In a few weeks, we'll be sharing plans for hosting single day events, especially in parts of the world with a lot of interest in cloud native but without easy access to KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North

I'm strongly in favour of additional, community level mini conferences, at the scale of promcon for example. Having those could justify some rules aimed at improving the mega conferences.

I agree that asking for more talk information up front would be useful. I also agree that we should be considering what is important to a conference attendee. Chiradeep, there are plans to run one day

Is it feasible at all to hold more Kubecons? Minikubecons? The mini version would be more like a day-long meetup, I guess, but with a little bit of backing from CNCF (marketing). Wouldn’t expect

I second that. As someone who has had a long history with CS academic conferences (as both a reviewer and author), I was really surprised by the fact that we only needed to write a very short abstract

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