cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io

Home Messages Hashtags Subgroups

Messages

Between

and

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

Sarah, thanks for calling out the negative language. I didn’t mean to go that route. Sorry about that. I agree with Sarah on this. Do we have our target audiences documented? Not communicating

By Matt Farina · #2567 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By Jaice Singer DuMars <jaice@...> · #2566 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...> · #2565 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By alexis richardson · #2564 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> · #2563 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> · #2562 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Chris Aniszczyk · #2561 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By alexis richardson · #2560 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Matt Farina · #2559 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Matt Farina · #2558 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Chris Aniszczyk · #2557 ·

Re: Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Yuri Shkuro · #2556 ·

Discuss CloudNaticeCon/KubeCon technical content at the TOC

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

By Matt Farina · #2555 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By alexis richardson · #2554 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Camille, that is a fantastic observation. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Matt Farina mattfarina.com

By Matt Farina · #2553 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> · #2552 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...> · #2551 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By Eduardo Silva · #2550 ·

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

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

By Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...> · #2549 ·

Re: 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

By Camille Fournier · #2548 ·

5441 - 5460 of 8007

Home Hashtags Subgroups Terms