just for stats, for the ServerlessNYC event in 2 weeks (1 day we organized) we got about 50 submission, only 2 on Knative (one accepted) also while most submissions covered real user stories based on

Liz, i assume you know how things work, a company doesn't need to make all the submission it self to push an agenda your role is to provide diversity, not just in speakers but also in topics, its just

I'm going to say that I agree with you here, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for just a moment. Let's say that JaneSchmoeNativeTool IS better than GNativeTool. Even if Jane

For the sake of my point let's remove "Google" altogether and replace with "HugeVendor" not to be pointing fingers since they are doing what any vendor would do in their position of

Only four of the submissions on Knative were from Google! Perhaps it goes to show that a lot of other people are also interested in this technology? Again I go back to my point that a lot of people

I'm aware this is a bit a political minefield here, but I'm concerned the committee(s) are unintentionally choosing winners here (same for KubeCon EU Købnhavn). What I mean is this: "popularity" of a

liz, its not the number of submission which should count, i guess if "theoretically" there was a large company w special interest in Knative they can make hundred submission to promote it. We saw the

Eughhh, reading this through I fear it might come over as defensive, but since I've collected the information, I'm going ahead regardless. Let's look at the *actual* situation on this serverless

Liz, thanks for sharing those details. I know this is a tough job. Thanks for putting up with this extra work of the questioning and people poking at the ideas here. Anything I’m suggesting is more

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