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

Dan, looking at the schedule, the fact that out of total 6 sessions in the Serverless track there are4 talks about Knative raises a serious question about the bias of this process how come the

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:14 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote: if TLF is there for the benefit of it’s members than shouldn’t most feel they are on a level playing field in this 501c6? If TLF is

If we don’t have problems we’re trying to solve or things we’re trying to improve, how can we review the proposed solutions against the issues? Wouldn’t it be easy to start having color of the

Background: I was in academia/research for 12y+, submitted hundreds of papers, reviewed even more and was serving on many dozens of PC, organizing workshops, serving as general chair and program

A double blind process of review combined with a more complete paper submission (instead of a short abstract) would ensure standards similar to those in academia - which is a known system, and for

Here is a summary of the discussion so far: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sDXfk5MHAmHZVdIx1t4PREo_SSXKcloCOUYjZIo4jBs/ -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation

> So, being a track chair is decidedly an emphatically thankless, time consuming and stressful role. As someone who has been a conference track chair, I can say it sure it. So, I want to thank Liz and

So, being a track chair is decidedly an emphatically thankless, time consuming and stressful role. I’ve been volunteering as one for PyCon for the last 5 years, so 1) please know I know your pain

We had 75 people participate on the program committee for Seattle. From https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/05/29/get-your-kubecon-talk-accepted/ : -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native

On 10/4/2018 2:06 PM, Liz Rice wrote: Why? You're essentially doing this now when you narrow things down anyway. I don't think it's practical to require a whole deck, but a

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:44 PM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote: End users submitted 14% of the talks to KubeCon but were accepted to present 28% of the sessions. So, end users had a 26%

Hi all from a current co-chair :-) Some great constructive ideas here, this is turning into a good discussion. On the double-blinding, I was involved in discussions about this after Austin and again

Hi For the record, this list is probably the best meeting place of record for the community to air requests and commentary. So, yes, lots of people are here and listening to everything that is being

I think it's disconcerting (if somewhat comical) that the concern that the ideas shared here would get rebuttals -- a concern that I and I think many members of the TOC also likely share -- itself got

There's no requirement or expectation that end users giving talks at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon be members of the End User Community and being one does not help get one's talk accepted. Based on some

The conference and the processes associated with it have iterated significantly each time. I assure you we are all reading this feedback carefully and thinking through the implications of adopting it.

This sort of feels like the ideas shared here are going to get rebuttals. Can we instead take all of this as ideas to look at how we refine and improve things in the future? Where we can intentionally

Yes

Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses. -- Dan Kohn <dan@...> Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation