I have similar questions about the review process as Ruben. Are we planning to make any changes? The review and selection process is such a key factor for the success of the conference. We had a long

Thanks a lot for putting this together, Matt! Huge +1 for track chairs. Cheers, Michael -- Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate OpenShift by Red Hat Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter:

+1 on track chairs. Would be excellent to see actually mutiple people as track chairs. It would be a great opportunity to expand the number of organizations involved in organizing KubeCon. Also,

Note, Chris A. also shared that there is going to be a post conference transparency report from CNCF that compiles some data we are able to collect and track through our own systems, observations,

I really like Quintons idea. It forces us to pay attention to and try to meet the needs of end users. If we don't do that something else could come along and steal our thunder.

+1 for track chairs I've been part of several program committees over last several years. And this one factor really helps build a great agenda. The chairs still oversee the agenda but they deal with

Nanci Lancaster (https://www.cncf.io/people/staff/) is nearly a full-time staff member supporting the co-chairs and program committee in their work. She is also backed up by Jillian on the LF content

Thanks Matt Nice write-up. For me, the main high-level take-away from the session was this: Lets give attendees (primarily end users) what they’re looking for (in several dimensions). To do that,

+1 on track chairs, especially aligned to the new category structures would work really well. Thanks, Sonya Sonya Koptyev | Director of Evangelism | m: +1 425 505 0100 On Dec 18, 2018, 3:59 PM

As the chairs are volunteering in spare time, I suggest that more support is necessary.

I'm sorry I could not stay in Seattle for this meeting. Were alternative review approaches discussed? single-blind/double-blind? Changes in the proposal format? Length of fields, etc?

Hi Alexis, Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in

+1 for track chairs! I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity. WDY(A)T?

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material

The etcd project has been approved to join the CNCF incubator: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/143 +1 binding TOC votes (8/9): Quinton: https://lists.cncf.io/g/cncf-toc/message/2259 Camille:

* Are you tracking components/individual repos as well? yes, each project has its own site, all repositories are tracked and grouped into repository groups. For "All CNCF" project each repository

Looks like a good collection and basis for more analysis; questions in no particular order: * Are you tracking components/individual repos as well? * Are you tracking people (most commits, etc) as

The TOC has decided to cancel the 12/18 meeting due to the December holidays. We hope everyone has a great holiday and new years! -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719

Hey all, we have been experimenting with surfacing project health metrics via DevStats for CNCF projects: https://all.devstats.cncf.io/d/53/projects-health?orgId=1 If there are metrics that are

The Kubernetes Steering Committee delegated it to a committee to select a vendor: https://github.com/kubernetes/steering/issues/71 -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719