Date   

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
 

This is interesting data. I found the track selection a bit confusing actually. I submitted a session about my experience as an end-user involved in the CloudEvents WG trying to help drive out some of the immaturity and inconsistency in the space, but I don’t remember which track I put it in. I was going to cover some of the technical details, but also how to get involved and help drive some of this change in the community. I remember the text limit being an issue. What I’m really surprised about is that there isn’t a CloudEvents session in the serverless track with so many great members of that WG.

 

Overall, I’m looking forward to the event and am thankful for the impressive effort of the organizers. We go through a couple hundred submissions at most for the conference I organize, so I can’t imagine the scale of KubeCon.

 

Dan Barker

Chief Architect

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

1100 Walnut St. Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106

816-783-8669

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Matt Farina
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 12:46 PM
To: Liz Rice <liz@...>
Cc: Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>; Dan Kohn <dan@...>; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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 about clarifying for future conferences and trying to be explicit where we may not have been before.

 

I completely understand the desire to identify hot technologies. With 2/3 of the proposed talks on one technology it speaks to a level of hotness.

 

But, there are a couple other ways to look at this situation…

 

First, there is as a track attendee. 4 of 6 presentations on the same technology is not exciting and does not give me a diverse view. For someone not in the know it gives the impression that the space is not very diverse and that the main piece of technology is “work-in-progress” (the label on knative). Is this the impression we want conference attendees to have?

 

Second, there is from the perspective of people proposing sessions.

 

For Kubernetes there are currently numerous serverless technologies including, but not limited to:

 

  • knative
  • OpenFaaS
  • Kubeless
  • Fission
  • Brigade
  • Virtual Kubelet (works with serverless containers like ACI, Fargate, etc but is not FaaS)

 

Jupyter bills itself as a web application and notebook. It’s getting a lot of buzz but I’ve not heard of it being billed as Serverless.

 

There are also tools like serverless that can work with numerous technologies including kubeless (on this list) that are workflow solutions.

 

In addition there are things the CNCF serverless working group has been working on like cloudevents (which has an intro and deep dive out of band from the serverless track).

 

The serverless track then has 4 of 6 session on knative, 1 of 6 on something else (Jupyter), and sessions on other serverless technologies being rejected.

 

Can we all see how decisions here could be interpreted with malicious intent and how it could put a negative view on the conference and decision making process? Whether it happened that way or not, people could come to malicious conclusions.

 

This all leads me to other questions...

 

Do we want end-user presentations in this space? Since knative is hot but not ready for production some other technology would be used by them. But, it’s useful today and not “hot”. How do we encourage end-users to present here? Is “hot” or useful today more important?

 

Is a goal diversity? If so, mirroring presentations with only those that are hot doesn’t provide for diversity.

 

If some of the intent and goal components could be ironed out it would help future decision makers.

 

 

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 



On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

 

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 spreadsheet: of ~60 submissions under Serverless, ~40 of them mentioned Knative. If number of submissions has some rough correlation to "what the community is currently interested in" (and I believe it does) then Knative is currently very hot, and we have tried to reflect this in the agenda. There's actually a seventh talk from the Serverless list that we accepted into the Observability track because we felt it straddled both topics. 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:15 PM Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

Dan,

 

looking at the schedule, the fact that out of total 6 sessions in the Serverless track there are 4 talks about Knative raises a serious question about the bias of this process

how come the only other two sessions are on OpenFaaS and Jupyter (serverless? really)  and other efforts in the space are left in the cold ?

 

Yaron

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 23:35
To: cncf-toc@...


Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

Here is a summary of the discussion so far:

 

 

-- 

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145

 

----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and any attachments are from the NAIC and are intended only for the addressee. Information contained herein is confidential, and may be privileged or exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable federal or state law. This message is not intended as a waiver of the confidential, privileged or exempted status of the information transmitted. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or by forwarding it to the NAIC Service Desk at help@....


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
 

DevOps Enterprise Summit asks about a lot of transformation related details. We may want to do that as well since many of the end-users are likely using these tools to help move their legacy infrastructure in unique and challenging ways. They’re likely using a lot of the tools in ways that others will appreciate and mimic but may not be what the vendor intended.

 

Dan Barker

Chief Architect

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

1100 Walnut St. Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106

816-783-8669

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Yuan Chen
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:03 PM
To: Bob Wise <bob@...>; alena@...
Cc: Dan Kohn <dan@...>; skamille@...; Brian Grant <briangrant@...>; bryan@...; CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

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 (up to 900 characters)! I was wondering how a reviewer could make a decision based on such limited information.

 

Also, as the effort required to write a proposal was not that much, there were a larger number of submissions. To me, the quality or outcome (those accepted proposals) should matter most, not the number of submissions.

 

Interestingly, we were asked to provide a lot of information about our background and experience. I couldn’t help thinking the reviewers care more about an author’s background and experience than the submission itself.

 

Would it be helpful to try something like an extended abstract, which can provide more information and technical content? We can use a template (e.g., problem statement, solution and results), maybe 1-2 pages.

 

Also, I would like to have received feedbacks on my submissions.

 

Thanks,

 

-Yuan

 

Principal Architect, Infrastructure

JD.com Silicon Valley R&D Center

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 7:50 PM
To: "alena@..." <alena@...>
Cc: Dan Kohn <dan@...>, "skamille@..." <skamille@...>, Brian Grant <briangrant@...>, "bryan@..." <bryan@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

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 would be a fine tradeoff.

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:36 PM Alena Prokharchyk <alena@...> wrote:

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 make a fair judgement. Kubecon submissions are short abstracts, and can't be judged the same way. Speaker's presentation skills, the projects he/she is involved in, the presentations given in the past should be taken into consideration. Unless we ask to include slides and transcript of the presentation as a part of the submission, there is not enough basis to do double blind voting.

 

A disclaimer: some of my talks were accepted to kubecon, some were rejected. As a speaker (and I don't consider myself to be a particularly good one) I'd really like to know the reasons behind both decisions.

 


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 5:29:27 PM
To: Camille Fournier
Cc: Brian Grant; Bryan Cantrell; cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:14 PM Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

What percentage of end user talks were accepted?

 

27.8% of talks are from end users.

 

--

Dan Kohn <dan@...>

Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io

+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and any attachments are from the NAIC and are intended only for the addressee. Information contained herein is confidential, and may be privileged or exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable federal or state law. This message is not intended as a waiver of the confidential, privileged or exempted status of the information transmitted. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or by forwarding it to the NAIC Service Desk at help@....


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Barker, Daniel <drbarker@...>
 

As an end-user, I submitted several this year that weren’t accepted, and I don’t have a team of people to make it sound great, and I don’t speak at a lot of conferences in order to know exactly how to create a proposal. I run a conference, and I have seen some of these vendor submissions that are identical to what has been submitted to all other conferences and they often sound amazing. Listening to vendors give me an idyllic vision provides me no real value, and that isn’t why I would want to attend KubeCon. Some vendors are certainly better than others and some stock presentations are engaging, but I find I rarely learn much. My preference is for real-world examples or in-depth theory presentations. I don’t attend vendor conferences because they are highly biased, uninformative, and primarily marketing driven. I’ll just watch the webinar or a YouTube video.

 

Dan Barker

Chief Architect

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

1100 Walnut St. Suite 1500

Kansas City, MO 64106

816-783-8669

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 7:12 PM
To: Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please remember that "vendors" are also in many cases the primary contributors to CNCF projects. 

 

I talked to one of the co-chairs. There are vastly more talks submitted by project contributors than by end users. Perhaps that should be an ask to our end-user community -- submit more talks.

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:59 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

 

One per vendor might be too acute, as some vendors are doing much more than others.  But having some system that limits the number of submissions per vendor (and therefore force the vendors to adopt some process to determine their best submissions) would probably help -- and would also help address the too-low acceptance rate...

 

        - Bryan

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:54 AM Anthony Skipper <anthony@...> wrote:

I would agree with double blind.  But a max of 1 talk per vendor might also go a long way. 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:47 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

 

On the call yesterday, Dan asked me to send out my thoughts on double-blind reviewing.  My e-mail quickly turned into a blog entry:

 

 

Something that I probably didn't highlight well enough in there is Kathryn McKinley's excellent piece on double-blind review:

 

 

There are certainly lots of ways to attack this problem, but I view double-blind as an essential piece -- but probably not sufficient on its own.

 

         - Bryan

----------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This message and any attachments are from the NAIC and are intended only for the addressee. Information contained herein is confidential, and may be privileged or exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable federal or state law. This message is not intended as a waiver of the confidential, privileged or exempted status of the information transmitted. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or by forwarding it to the NAIC Service Desk at help@....


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

Thanks, Mike. We were looking for a model we could emulate and DevopsDays looks like a promising one. CNCF staff are investigating this.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com


On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:02 AM Mike Long <mike@...> wrote:
Hi,

I wonder if we might want to look at a similar setup as devopsdays?  

It is organized by local groups, and the rules are quite simple and fair.  It must be organized by a committee from various companies, it is not for profit, and the sponsorship rules avoid it turning into a sale farce.

Best regards,
Mike

____________________________________________________________
Mike Long 
Chief Technology Officer 

mike@... 
+47 48 67 63 60 
Praqma.com 
Praqma Oslo 




On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...> wrote:
Hello, 

Sounds like a lot of value packed within a single day!
By any chance, how can we plan for something similar to be held in Tokyo?  
There are container focused events held here, and some are gathering 300~400 people in one room. 

Ippei 


On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:42 AM, alessandro via Lists.Cncf.Io <alessandro.vozza=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!


Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

Also an option, of course.

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place
last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly
affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small
and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have
to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).








Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Mike Long
 

Hi,

I wonder if we might want to look at a similar setup as devopsdays?  

It is organized by local groups, and the rules are quite simple and fair.  It must be organized by a committee from various companies, it is not for profit, and the sponsorship rules avoid it turning into a sale farce.

Best regards,
Mike

____________________________________________________________
Mike Long 
Chief Technology Officer 

mike@... 
+47 48 67 63 60 
Praqma.com 
Praqma Oslo 




On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Ippei Suzuki <i-suzuki@...> wrote:
Hello, 

Sounds like a lot of value packed within a single day!
By any chance, how can we plan for something similar to be held in Tokyo?  
There are container focused events held here, and some are gathering 300~400 people in one room. 

Ippei 


On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:42 AM, alessandro via Lists.Cncf.Io <alessandro.vozza=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!


Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

Also an option, of course.

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place
last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly
affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small
and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have
to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).








Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ippei Suzuki
 

Hello, 

Sounds like a lot of value packed within a single day!
By any chance, how can we plan for something similar to be held in Tokyo?  
There are container focused events held here, and some are gathering 300~400 people in one room. 

Ippei 

On Oct 16, 2018, at 11:42 AM, alessandro via Lists.Cncf.Io <alessandro.vozza=microsoft.com@...> wrote:

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!


Sent from my mobile

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

Also an option, of course.

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place
last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly
affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small
and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have
to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).







Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

alessandro
 

We had a Kubernetes day in Amsterdam last June which was a good success; we had 200 attendees for a full day, single track event hosted in a great location (thanks to the ones in cc to make it happen). We had Acqua, Sysdig, Google, Microsoft, Rancher and Container Solutions sponsoring and presenting; we learned a lot and were aiming to organize one in the next year (changing name). I highly suggest to organize one in your city, it’s a fun and learning experience. In my opinion, I’ll leave more space to mingling and networking and less to talks. Reach out if you wanna know more!


Sent from my mobile


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:47:51 PM
To: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

Also an option, of course.

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place
last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly
affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small
and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have
to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).






Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ilya Dmitrichenko
 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Ilan Rabinovitch <ilan@...> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
> existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
> the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
> meetup organizers to help?
> Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
> something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks.  We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.

Also an option, of course.

By the way, we do have a local event - Cloud Native London, it took place
last month and also in 2017 (IIRC). It's a great event, but it's not exactly
affordable. ContainerCamp is probably closer to what I'd consider small
and affordable event, yet tickets still could be cheaper and it doesn't have
to be a major tech city like London (where hotels & venues are expensive).






Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ilan Rabinovitch
 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 AM Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...> wrote:
To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
meetup organizers to help?
Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
something about the URL and the page as such... ;)
One more option to would be to partner with existing community events
and add k8s or CloudNative tracks. We've found this to be a win/win
at SCALE and other local events I'm involved in.


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>
 

To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
meetup organizers to help?
Yes ;)

Cheers,
Michael

--
Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate
OpenShift by Red Hat
Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas
http://openshift.com | http://mhausenblas.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Reply: Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Date: 16 October 2018 at 11:53:53
To: Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>
Cc: Matt Farina <matt@...>, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...>, Camille Fournier
<skamille@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:46 AM Michael Hausenblas
wrote

As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
the event is much much less, thereby time spent
talking to attendees is significantly less.
+1

Also, we could think about how we could leverage
https://www.meetup.com/pro/cncf/ for it ;)
To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
meetup organizers to help?
Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ilya Dmitrichenko
Reply: Ilya Dmitrichenko
Date: 16 October 2018 at 10:28:32
To: Matt Farina
Cc: CNCF TOC , Camille Fournier
, Chris Aniszczyk
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

I second Matt's and Alexis' point on having more
of local mini-conferences/camps. Even for those
in the US or Europe, there isn't always a chance to
travel to a major city, and hotel prices as well as
duration of the even are a major factor.
Also, meetups have a number of properties that
make them less then idea, the fact that meetups
run in the evenings implies a lot, we cannot under-
estimate all seemingly small factors, e.g. the fact
that one may come to a meetup after a long day
of work and have low energy level already.
At a small 1-2 day even folks get to know each
other much more, also those of who may be more
shy get to voice their ideas and opinions, maybe
even for the first time within a wider group.

As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
the event is much much less, thereby time spent
talking to attendees is significantly less.


Ilya

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 3:24 pm Matt Farina, wrote:

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 a microservices architecture."

*If we want to foster community around these technologies the end-users
need to far outpace the vendors or projects.* Successful open source
projects often have a community of users where only a small fraction
are
even publicly engaged in the project.

Meetups aren’t enough to foster cloud native computing in local
markets.

WordCamp, DrupalCamp, and devops days are good examples of local
conferences that helped grow the ecosystem.

When it comes to growing ecosystems WordPress is a great example. It
powers
31.9% of the web
. No
matter what we think of the technology the approach around it does have
some lessons.

For several years there was a conference in Ohio called CloudDevelop.
It
was a local/regional conference with most people being local. It was
about
cloud development, mostly with traditional IaaS. Several hundred people
would attend. Many of whom worked for banks, insurance companies,
school
districts, and other places like these. Most of them wouldn’t travel
to the
big conferences but what they learned and shared here was valuable and
helped expand the use and understanding of cloud. These same people
often
won’t attend meetups because they have family responsibilities and
other
things going on in their evenings.


--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Camille Fournier wrote:

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.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018, 9:25 AM Chris Aniszczyk <
caniszczyk@...> wrote:

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, we
have
over 150+ worldwide:
Meetups: http://meetups.cncf.io/

We have been deliberately reaching out to folks all over the world and
the program has been growing every month since its inception
(instructions
on how to create a meetup here: https://github.com/cncf/meetups)

We also have an ambassador program where we support folks that run
meetups or speak at a variety of conferences that we may not be able
to get
too: https://www.cncf.io/people/ambassadors/

So in short, we're definitely looking to fill in the gaps next year
and
this is something I suggest you engage with the CNCF Marketing
Committee,
which is chaired by Mark Coleman:
https://www.cncf.io/people/marketing-committee/

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:12 AM Matt Farina wrote:

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 time. Meetups cut into evenings
and are short. Large conferences require travel. As someone outside
a tech
bubble city I see the appeal for locals.
- It builds up local ecosystem of cloud native folks. In particular
end-users
- These local conferences are a great way for people to learn and
hone speaking skills so they have the confidence to do a great job
at the
larger ones
- It helps build more and more capable end users


They aren’t hard to organize.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 <(512)%20961-6719>






Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ilya Dmitrichenko
 

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:46 AM Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...> wrote
> As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
> traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
> in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
> a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
> the event is much much less, thereby time spent
> talking to attendees is significantly less.

+1

Also, we could think about how we could leverage
https://www.meetup.com/pro/cncf/ for it ;)

To be clear, are you suggesting that we could leverage
existing groups by considering to mini-conferences at
the locations where a meetup groups exists and ask
meetup organizers to help?
Otherwise one could imply that you are suggesting
something about the URL and the page as such... ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Reply: Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Date: 16 October 2018 at 10:28:32
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Camille Fournier
<skamille@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

> I second Matt's and Alexis' point on having more
> of local mini-conferences/camps. Even for those
> in the US or Europe, there isn't always a chance to
> travel to a major city, and hotel prices as well as
> duration of the even are a major factor.
> Also, meetups have a number of properties that
> make them less then idea, the fact that meetups
> run in the evenings implies a lot, we cannot under-
> estimate all seemingly small factors, e.g. the fact
> that one may come to a meetup after a long day
> of work and have low energy level already.
> At a small 1-2 day even folks get to know each
> other much more, also those of who may be more
> shy get to voice their ideas and opinions, maybe
> even for the first time within a wider group.
>
> As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
> traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
> in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
> a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
> the event is much much less, thereby time spent
> talking to attendees is significantly less.
>
>
> Ilya
>
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 3:24 pm Matt Farina, wrote:
>
> > 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 a microservices architecture."
> >
> > *If we want to foster community around these technologies the end-users
> > need to far outpace the vendors or projects.* Successful open source
> > projects often have a community of users where only a small fraction are
> > even publicly engaged in the project.
> >
> > Meetups aren’t enough to foster cloud native computing in local markets.
> >
> > WordCamp, DrupalCamp, and devops days are good examples of local
> > conferences that helped grow the ecosystem.
> >
> > When it comes to growing ecosystems WordPress is a great example. It powers
> > 31.9% of the web
> > . No
> > matter what we think of the technology the approach around it does have
> > some lessons.
> >
> > For several years there was a conference in Ohio called CloudDevelop. It
> > was a local/regional conference with most people being local. It was about
> > cloud development, mostly with traditional IaaS. Several hundred people
> > would attend. Many of whom worked for banks, insurance companies, school
> > districts, and other places like these. Most of them wouldn’t travel to the
> > big conferences but what they learned and shared here was valuable and
> > helped expand the use and understanding of cloud. These same people often
> > won’t attend meetups because they have family responsibilities and other
> > things going on in their evenings.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matt Farina
> > mattfarina.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Camille Fournier wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018, 9:25 AM Chris Aniszczyk <
> > caniszczyk@...> wrote:
> >
> >> 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, we have
> >> over 150+ worldwide:
> >> Meetups: http://meetups.cncf.io/
> >>
> >> We have been deliberately reaching out to folks all over the world and
> >> the program has been growing every month since its inception (instructions
> >> on how to create a meetup here: https://github.com/cncf/meetups)
> >>
> >> We also have an ambassador program where we support folks that run
> >> meetups or speak at a variety of conferences that we may not be able to get
> >> too: https://www.cncf.io/people/ambassadors/
> >>
> >> So in short, we're definitely looking to fill in the gaps next year and
> >> this is something I suggest you engage with the CNCF Marketing Committee,
> >> which is chaired by Mark Coleman:
> >> https://www.cncf.io/people/marketing-committee/
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:12 AM Matt Farina wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 time. Meetups cut into evenings
> >>> and are short. Large conferences require travel. As someone outside a tech
> >>> bubble city I see the appeal for locals.
> >>> - It builds up local ecosystem of cloud native folks. In particular
> >>> end-users
> >>> - These local conferences are a great way for people to learn and
> >>> hone speaking skills so they have the confidence to do a great job at the
> >>> larger ones
> >>> - It helps build more and more capable end users
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> They aren’t hard to organize.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Matt Farina
> >>> mattfarina.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>
 

As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
the event is much much less, thereby time spent
talking to attendees is significantly less.
+1

Also, we could think about how we could leverage
https://www.meetup.com/pro/cncf/ for it ;)

Cheers,
Michael

--
Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate
OpenShift by Red Hat
Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas
http://openshift.com | http://mhausenblas.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Reply: Ilya Dmitrichenko <ilya@...>
Date: 16 October 2018 at 10:28:32
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Camille Fournier
<skamille@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

I second Matt's and Alexis' point on having more
of local mini-conferences/camps. Even for those
in the US or Europe, there isn't always a chance to
travel to a major city, and hotel prices as well as
duration of the even are a major factor.
Also, meetups have a number of properties that
make them less then idea, the fact that meetups
run in the evenings implies a lot, we cannot under-
estimate all seemingly small factors, e.g. the fact
that one may come to a meetup after a long day
of work and have low energy level already.
At a small 1-2 day even folks get to know each
other much more, also those of who may be more
shy get to voice their ideas and opinions, maybe
even for the first time within a wider group.

As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
the event is much much less, thereby time spent
talking to attendees is significantly less.


Ilya

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 3:24 pm Matt Farina, wrote:

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 a microservices architecture."

*If we want to foster community around these technologies the end-users
need to far outpace the vendors or projects.* Successful open source
projects often have a community of users where only a small fraction are
even publicly engaged in the project.

Meetups aren’t enough to foster cloud native computing in local markets.

WordCamp, DrupalCamp, and devops days are good examples of local
conferences that helped grow the ecosystem.

When it comes to growing ecosystems WordPress is a great example. It powers
31.9% of the web
. No
matter what we think of the technology the approach around it does have
some lessons.

For several years there was a conference in Ohio called CloudDevelop. It
was a local/regional conference with most people being local. It was about
cloud development, mostly with traditional IaaS. Several hundred people
would attend. Many of whom worked for banks, insurance companies, school
districts, and other places like these. Most of them wouldn’t travel to the
big conferences but what they learned and shared here was valuable and
helped expand the use and understanding of cloud. These same people often
won’t attend meetups because they have family responsibilities and other
things going on in their evenings.


--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Camille Fournier wrote:

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.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018, 9:25 AM Chris Aniszczyk <
caniszczyk@...> wrote:

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, we have
over 150+ worldwide:
Meetups: http://meetups.cncf.io/

We have been deliberately reaching out to folks all over the world and
the program has been growing every month since its inception (instructions
on how to create a meetup here: https://github.com/cncf/meetups)

We also have an ambassador program where we support folks that run
meetups or speak at a variety of conferences that we may not be able to get
too: https://www.cncf.io/people/ambassadors/

So in short, we're definitely looking to fill in the gaps next year and
this is something I suggest you engage with the CNCF Marketing Committee,
which is chaired by Mark Coleman:
https://www.cncf.io/people/marketing-committee/

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:12 AM Matt Farina wrote:

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 time. Meetups cut into evenings
and are short. Large conferences require travel. As someone outside a tech
bubble city I see the appeal for locals.
- It builds up local ecosystem of cloud native folks. In particular
end-users
- These local conferences are a great way for people to learn and
hone speaking skills so they have the confidence to do a great job at the
larger ones
- It helps build more and more capable end users


They aren’t hard to organize.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719






Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ilya Dmitrichenko
 

I second Matt's and Alexis' point on having more
of local mini-conferences/camps. Even for those
in the US or Europe, there isn't always a chance to
travel to a major city, and hotel prices as well as
duration of the even are a major factor.
Also, meetups have a number of properties that
make them less then idea, the fact that meetups
run in the evenings implies a lot, we cannot under-
estimate all seemingly small factors, e.g. the fact
that one may come to a meetup after a long day
of work and have low energy level already.
At a small 1-2 day even folks get to know each
other much more, also those of who may be more
shy get to voice their ideas and opinions, maybe
even for the first time within a wider group.

As an ambassador, I would find it easier to justify
traveling to a small conference then a meetup, as
in either cases I have to get a flight/train ticket and
a hotel for the night, but at a meetup time spent at
the event is much much less, thereby time spent
talking to attendees is significantly less.


Ilya 

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 3:24 pm Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
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 a microservices architecture."

If we want to foster community around these technologies the end-users need to far outpace the vendors or projects. Successful open source projects often have a community of users where only a small fraction are even publicly engaged in the project.

Meetups aren’t enough to foster cloud native computing in local markets. 

WordCamp, DrupalCamp, and devops days are good examples of local conferences that helped grow the ecosystem.

When it comes to growing ecosystems WordPress is a great example. It powers 31.9% of the web. No matter what we think of the technology the approach around it does have some lessons.

For several years there was a conference in Ohio called CloudDevelop. It was a local/regional conference with most people being local. It was about cloud development, mostly with traditional IaaS. Several hundred people would attend. Many of whom worked for banks, insurance companies, school districts, and other places like these. Most of them wouldn’t travel to the big conferences but what they learned and shared here was valuable and helped expand the use and understanding of cloud. These same people often won’t attend meetups because they have family responsibilities and other things going on in their evenings.


-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:

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.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018, 9:25 AM Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
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, we have over 150+ worldwide:

We have been deliberately reaching out to folks all over the world and the program has been growing every month since its inception (instructions on how to create a meetup here: https://github.com/cncf/meetups)

We also have an ambassador program where we support folks that run meetups or speak at a variety of conferences that we may not be able to get too: https://www.cncf.io/people/ambassadors/

So in short, we're definitely looking to fill in the gaps next year and this is something I suggest you engage with the CNCF Marketing Committee, which is chaired by Mark Coleman: https://www.cncf.io/people/marketing-committee/

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:12 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
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 time. Meetups cut into evenings and are short. Large conferences require travel. As someone outside a tech bubble city I see the appeal for locals.
  • It builds up local ecosystem of cloud native folks. In particular end-users
  • These local conferences are a great way for people to learn and hone speaking skills so they have the confidence to do a great job at the larger ones
  • It helps build more and more capable end users

They aren’t hard to organize.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

justinsb@...
 

I really like the checkbox (or slider) suggestion - I think it could be very helpful all around.  I've helped review some submissions, and I try to apply consistent criteria.  I based my criteria on the instructions, but there's certainly room for interpretation particularly when it comes to how to weight criteria.  So it would probably both help me review faster and score more accurately if it was "+1 for OSS, +1 for end-user, -2 for content itself = average" type thing, and this could likely both let the track assemblers reweight these criteria to give balance to a track, and also provide some simple actionable feedback for submitters (e.g. "your strongest factor was that the topic was interesting, but the weakest factor was that people worried it was going to turn into a sales pitch").


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Andrew Martin
 
Edited

Firstly I am more than happy with the conference tracks, I always learn a huge amount and take away a lot more for study. 

A few thoughts from discussing this thread with organisers of other major (non-LF) conferences:

- possibly having review spreadsheet checkboxes for "abstract doesn't clarify the talk's content", or "good abstract but a better one was selected, please apply again", "huge number of submissions in this area" etc could ease the burden of personalised, individual review. Small extra detail in rejection responses may serve to encourage first-time submitters/serial rejectees
- helpmeabstract.com could help as one of these checkbox recommendations for unclear or unspecific abstracts
- in some cases the natural bias of single blind submissions is desirable, and a good abstract is not necessarily correlated with a quality presentation. My personal review flow is to skim and roughly grade abstracts, then when a subject's in high contention scroll right for further information. In some cases an SME's authorship with scant abstract will outweigh a well-written abstract, as the expected depth of the SME's presentation is preferable (especially for new or emerging technologies). And observationally: in small fields such as Kubecon's per-technology tracks, double blind doesn't ensure anonymity due to writing and abstract style. YYMV

Thanks,


Andy


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>
 

As an organiser of various conferences (and as someone who didn't get a
talk accepted at KubeCon this year), can I just point out that Liz and
Janet have done a fantastic job in orchestrating something as complex as
this, and I want to thank them for this.
+1000

As much as I like to contribute via reviewing, I certainly don’t envy
the chairs and no matter how rude certain people on this thread are or
think it’s OK to use whatever tone they feel entitled to, first and
foremost I have 100% trust in the chairs to carry out their duties in
an objective manner.

Cheers,
Michael

--
Michael Hausenblas, Developer Advocate
OpenShift by Red Hat
Mobile: +353 86 0215164 | Twitter: @mhausenblas
http://openshift.com | http://mhausenblas.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Bryant <db@...>
Reply: Daniel Bryant <db@...>
Date: 10 October 2018 at 10:50:59
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

As an organiser of various conferences (and as someone who didn't get a
talk accepted at KubeCon this year), can I just point out that Liz and
Janet have done a fantastic job in orchestrating something as complex as
this, and I want to thank them for this.

I feel that some of the mails on this list are making quite strong
accusations without much evidence or understanding of the process, and not
only does this dilute the feedback process, but it is also potentially
making the task of recruiting (and being) a co-chair much less appealing
for future events.

With the sheer volume of players (vendors, communities and individuals) in
the CNCF space, the creation of a conference program truly is a *complex*
problem, and clearly not everyone will be happy with the result.

I personally would be keen to see a public retrospective of the conference,
but this should be done after the event, and take in attendee feedback as
the highest priority. Questions like "what topics were missing at KubeCon?"
and "did you see all the technologies you expected?" will provide answers
more indicative than all of us trying to guess whether the selected talks
are representative of what the community wants to see.

Best wishes,

Daniel



On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:19 PM Matt Farina wrote:

Liz, I appreciate you’re taking time here with more details.

I want to note a difference between malicious intent and people drawing
conclusions of it. Those are different people in different situations. I,
personally, don’t think you had any malicious intent. I can see how some
might draw the conclusion, though. I can only imagine what intent people
drew from my decisions in the past. That’s why I keep thinking with a
forward eye.

Matt, BTW you left out nuclio serverless platform
I said including because I’m sure I missed more than one serverless
platform. There are oh so many of them right now.

Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one
company)
submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad
interest to the community.

There different types of people with different goals. Lots of submissions
means there’s are people, vendors in our case, who want to talk about
something to users. But, does that mean it’s useful material for the
end-users? Should end-users get to see the diversity?

I note the vendors here because Dan shared details on how few percent of
end-users even submitted to the conference. On the whole the general
sessions are vendors.

One of the Knative talks is an end-user story from T-Mobile
I really want to see if “work in progress” software is being used by
T-Mobile in production. I’m curious now :)

Kubeless was mentioned in two abstracts, one of which is an accepted
talk and the other really didn't get a great score.

Can you point me to the session on this? Searching the schedule for
kubeless turned up speaders with it in their bios but not in the sessions
themselves. I’m curious to see what we have and what track that landed on.

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)
What does this say about CloudNativeCon and it’s interaction with
developers and the outside world (where the end-users are)? Are our
submissions too much on our island of ideas and topics?

Let's say that JaneSchmoeNativeTool IS better than GNativeTool.
Even if Jane Schmoe DOES get a talk at Kubecon, will it really make a
difference to adoption under these circumstances?
This is a wonderful question. Consider the room of attendees going to this
track. If they don’t hear about other options will they ever try them?
Should that room full of attendees hear about a diverse set of solutions?

Back to this question, in practice presentations at conferences like this
can have an impact. That’s part of the reason why there was a push for
knative sessions here.

To circle back to something Dan said,

The reality is than an organization like CNCF has many constituencies,
including our members, the TOC, our project maintainers, our end users,
developers considering using or contributing to our projects, and others.
knative is really an interesting case for this system. It’s not a CNCF
project. Does that mean it’s not one of our projects when our is the CNCF?
That means having so much of it isn’t in support of our project maintainers
or of getting devs to consider using or contributing to our projects… right?

It’s work in progress rather than being released so it’s not ready for
most end-users. There are alternative solutions that are 1.0 released and
ready for production. So, how does knative benefit end-users this year at
the con?

Yet, a group of vendors is pushing it to make it hot.

Just thinking out loud. knative is a really good test to think out loud on.



--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com







Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Daniel Bryant
 

As an organiser of various conferences (and as someone who didn't get a talk accepted at KubeCon this year), can I just point out that Liz and Janet have done a fantastic job in orchestrating something as complex as this, and I want to thank them for this. 

I feel that some of the mails on this list are making quite strong accusations without much evidence or understanding of the process, and not only does this dilute the feedback process, but it is also potentially making the task of recruiting (and being) a co-chair much less appealing for future events.

With the sheer volume of players (vendors, communities and individuals) in the CNCF space, the creation of a conference program truly is a *complex* problem, and clearly not everyone will be happy with the result. 

I personally would be keen to see a public retrospective of the conference, but this should be done after the event, and take in attendee feedback as the highest priority. Questions like "what topics were missing at KubeCon?" and "did you see all the technologies you expected?" will provide answers more indicative than all of us trying to guess whether the selected talks are representative of what the community wants to see.

Best wishes,

Daniel



On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:19 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Liz, I appreciate you’re taking time here with more details.

I want to note a difference between malicious intent and people drawing conclusions of it. Those are different people in different situations. I, personally, don’t think you had any malicious intent. I can see how some might draw the conclusion, though. I can only imagine what intent people drew from my decisions in the past. That’s why I keep thinking with a forward eye.

> Matt, BTW you left out nuclio serverless platform

I said including because I’m sure I missed more than one serverless platform. There are oh so many of them right now.

> Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company)
> submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

There different types of people with different goals. Lots of submissions means there’s are people, vendors in our case, who want to talk about something to users. But, does that mean it’s useful material for the end-users? Should end-users get to see the diversity?

I note the vendors here because Dan shared details on how few percent of end-users even submitted to the conference. On the whole the general sessions are vendors.

> One of the Knative talks is an end-user story from T-Mobile

I really want to see if “work in progress” software is being used by T-Mobile in production. I’m curious now :)

> Kubeless was mentioned in two abstracts, one of which is an accepted talk and the other really didn't get a great score. 

Can you point me to the session on this? Searching the schedule for kubeless turned up speaders with it in their bios but not in the sessions themselves. I’m curious to see what we have and what track that landed on.

> 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)

What does this say about CloudNativeCon and it’s interaction with developers and the outside world (where the end-users are)? Are our submissions too much on our island of ideas and topics?

Let's say that JaneSchmoeNativeTool IS better than GNativeTool.
> Even if Jane Schmoe DOES get a talk at Kubecon, will it really make a
> difference to adoption under these circumstances?

This is a wonderful question. Consider the room of attendees going to this track. If they don’t hear about other options will they ever try them? Should that room full of attendees hear about a diverse set of solutions?

Back to this question, in practice presentations at conferences like this can have an impact. That’s part of the reason why there was a push for knative sessions here.

To circle back to something Dan said,

> The reality is than an organization like CNCF has many constituencies,
> including our members, the TOC, our project maintainers, our end users,
> developers considering using or contributing to our projects, and others.

knative is really an interesting case for this system. It’s not a CNCF project. Does that mean it’s not one of our projects when our is the CNCF? That means having so much of it isn’t in support of our project maintainers or of getting devs to consider using or contributing to our projects… right?

It’s work in progress rather than being released so it’s not ready for most end-users. There are alternative solutions that are 1.0 released and ready for production. So, how does knative benefit end-users this year at the con?

Yet, a group of vendors is pushing it to make it hot.

Just thinking out loud. knative is a really good test to think out loud on.



-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Matt Farina
 

Liz, I appreciate you’re taking time here with more details.

I want to note a difference between malicious intent and people drawing conclusions of it. Those are different people in different situations. I, personally, don’t think you had any malicious intent. I can see how some might draw the conclusion, though. I can only imagine what intent people drew from my decisions in the past. That’s why I keep thinking with a forward eye.

> Matt, BTW you left out nuclio serverless platform

I said including because I’m sure I missed more than one serverless platform. There are oh so many of them right now.

> Again I go back to my point that a lot of people (and not just from one company)
> submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

There different types of people with different goals. Lots of submissions means there’s are people, vendors in our case, who want to talk about something to users. But, does that mean it’s useful material for the end-users? Should end-users get to see the diversity?

I note the vendors here because Dan shared details on how few percent of end-users even submitted to the conference. On the whole the general sessions are vendors.

> One of the Knative talks is an end-user story from T-Mobile

I really want to see if “work in progress” software is being used by T-Mobile in production. I’m curious now :)

> Kubeless was mentioned in two abstracts, one of which is an accepted talk and the other really didn't get a great score. 

Can you point me to the session on this? Searching the schedule for kubeless turned up speaders with it in their bios but not in the sessions themselves. I’m curious to see what we have and what track that landed on.

> 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)

What does this say about CloudNativeCon and it’s interaction with developers and the outside world (where the end-users are)? Are our submissions too much on our island of ideas and topics?

Let's say that JaneSchmoeNativeTool IS better than GNativeTool.
> Even if Jane Schmoe DOES get a talk at Kubecon, will it really make a
> difference to adoption under these circumstances?

This is a wonderful question. Consider the room of attendees going to this track. If they don’t hear about other options will they ever try them? Should that room full of attendees hear about a diverse set of solutions?

Back to this question, in practice presentations at conferences like this can have an impact. That’s part of the reason why there was a push for knative sessions here.

To circle back to something Dan said,

> The reality is than an organization like CNCF has many constituencies,
> including our members, the TOC, our project maintainers, our end users,
> developers considering using or contributing to our projects, and others.

knative is really an interesting case for this system. It’s not a CNCF project. Does that mean it’s not one of our projects when our is the CNCF? That means having so much of it isn’t in support of our project maintainers or of getting devs to consider using or contributing to our projects… right?

It’s work in progress rather than being released so it’s not ready for most end-users. There are alternative solutions that are 1.0 released and ready for production. So, how does knative benefit end-users this year at the con?

Yet, a group of vendors is pushing it to make it hot.

Just thinking out loud. knative is a really good test to think out loud on.



-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Steven Dake
 

Nick,

 

In my experience, airtime at a major conference is a huge factor in developer growth for a project.  Of the several projects I’ve started personally (heat, magnum, kolla), we saw 3x core developer growth within 2 weeks of any given 40 minute speaking slot at a major conference.  Growth was pretty equal across the board independent of the project.

 

Selecting talks in a track is equivalent to selecting which projects grow needed corporate and individual contributor developers.

 

Note I’m biased.  I personally am super bullish on knative, but I also strongly feel KubeCon should not make kings as per governance documentation.

 

I have also served as a track chair and understand the difficulty involved that Liz has pointed out.

 

Both perspectives should be evaluated.

 

Cheers

-steve

 

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Nick Chase <nchase@...>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 12:29 PM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

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 Schmoe DOES get a talk at Kubecon, will it really make a difference to adoption under these circumstances?

Not saying we don't have a problem, just saying that KubeCon talks are a necessary, but not sufficient solution.

----  Nick

 

On 10/9/2018 3:21 PM, Ruben Orduz wrote:

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 influence.

 

HugeVendor invests/works on GNativeTool. They push it hard through their marketing channels (developer and otherwise), get 5K github stars just by inertia, suddenly you have a large number of people submitting talks about it to all conferences. Meanwhile JaneSchmoe, inc. has been quietly working hard on her version of NativeTool for years and since she has neither the marketing budget nor the acumen to pull the market one way or the other, her product is less "popular" while perhaps having the upper hand in terms of technical and business value.

 

My point is not that HugeVendor is submitting an inordinate amount of proposals about a particular tech, what I'm saying is they have the gravitas and the market power to blow everything else out of the water and the committees are perceiving that as actual community adoption/opinion.

 

Best,

Ruben

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 3:07 PM Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

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 (and not just from one company) submitting on a topic suggests that at this moment in time it's of broad interest to the community. 

 

I'm not going to dig out all the numbers on Istio but it was the same kind of thing. We can't pick talks that aren't submitted!

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:43 PM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:

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 topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

 

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

 

Best,

Ruben 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

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 about clarifying for future conferences and trying to be explicit where we may not have been before.

 

I completely understand the desire to identify hot technologies. With 2/3 of the proposed talks on one technology it speaks to a level of hotness.

 

But, there are a couple other ways to look at this situation…

 

First, there is as a track attendee. 4 of 6 presentations on the same technology is not exciting and does not give me a diverse view. For someone not in the know it gives the impression that the space is not very diverse and that the main piece of technology is “work-in-progress” (the label on knative). Is this the impression we want conference attendees to have?

 

Second, there is from the perspective of people proposing sessions.

 

For Kubernetes there are currently numerous serverless technologies including, but not limited to:

 

  • knative
  • OpenFaaS
  • Kubeless
  • Fission
  • Brigade
  • Virtual Kubelet (works with serverless containers like ACI, Fargate, etc but is not FaaS)

 

Jupyter bills itself as a web application and notebook. It’s getting a lot of buzz but I’ve not heard of it being billed as Serverless.

 

There are also tools like serverless that can work with numerous technologies including kubeless (on this list) that are workflow solutions.

 

In addition there are things the CNCF serverless working group has been working on like cloudevents (which has an intro and deep dive out of band from the serverless track).

 

The serverless track then has 4 of 6 session on knative, 1 of 6 on something else (Jupyter), and sessions on other serverless technologies being rejected.

 

Can we all see how decisions here could be interpreted with malicious intent and how it could put a negative view on the conference and decision making process? Whether it happened that way or not, people could come to malicious conclusions.

 

This all leads me to other questions...

 

Do we want end-user presentations in this space? Since knative is hot but not ready for production some other technology would be used by them. But, it’s useful today and not “hot”. How do we encourage end-users to present here? Is “hot” or useful today more important?

 

Is a goal diversity? If so, mirroring presentations with only those that are hot doesn’t provide for diversity.

 

If some of the intent and goal components could be ironed out it would help future decision makers.

 

 

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 



On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

 

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 spreadsheet: of ~60 submissions under Serverless, ~40 of them mentioned Knative. If number of submissions has some rough correlation to "what the community is currently interested in" (and I believe it does) then Knative is currently very hot, and we have tried to reflect this in the agenda. There's actually a seventh talk from the Serverless list that we accepted into the Observability track because we felt it straddled both topics. 

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:15 PM Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

Dan,

 

looking at the schedule, the fact that out of total 6 sessions in the Serverless track there are 4 talks about Knative raises a serious question about the bias of this process

how come the only other two sessions are on OpenFaaS and Jupyter (serverless? really)  and other efforts in the space are left in the cold ?

 

Yaron

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 23:35
To: cncf-toc@...


Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

 

Here is a summary of the discussion so far:

 

 

-- 

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com +44 (0) 780 126 1145

 

--

Liz Rice

@lizrice  | lizrice.com | +44 (0) 780 126 1145

 

--
Nick Chase, Head of Technical and Marketing Content, Mirantis
Editor in Chief, Open Cloud Digest Author, Machine Learning for Mere Mortals


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...>
 

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 experience, those two were entirely Theoretical

this further emphasize that the current decision criteria favor some big pocket companies, and KC users are less likely to to learn about other proven or more innovative approaches without the same marketing/brand power

Yaron


From: Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 9:43:09 PM
To: Matt Farina
Cc: Liz Rice; Yaron Haviv; Dan Kohn; CNCF TOC
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon
 
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 topic or tech can be driven/influenced by movers and shakers in the field. Google pushes for a tool they are working on will get much more traction than a competing tool from a small third party. A dramatic example of this phenomenon is having a whole track dedicated to Istio even though it was as yet a somewhat unproven technology on the field and far from production-ready for enterprise customers who tend to wait until a tech is more stable before deploying it. Several other service meshy-techs felt shunned by this. 

I'm getting the same feeling about knative here. Seeing the over abundance of talk proposals about it, it was perceived as a good gauge of community interest, which again, a behemoth is behind pushing it so that's no surprise.

I would posit we need to be more careful to unintentionally pick favorites based on popularity, specially when there's a huge asymmetry in terms of marketing power and community outreach among competitors in any given tech.

Best,
Ruben 

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
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 about clarifying for future conferences and trying to be explicit where we may not have been before.

I completely understand the desire to identify hot technologies. With 2/3 of the proposed talks on one technology it speaks to a level of hotness.

But, there are a couple other ways to look at this situation…

First, there is as a track attendee. 4 of 6 presentations on the same technology is not exciting and does not give me a diverse view. For someone not in the know it gives the impression that the space is not very diverse and that the main piece of technology is “work-in-progress” (the label on knative). Is this the impression we want conference attendees to have?

Second, there is from the perspective of people proposing sessions.

For Kubernetes there are currently numerous serverless technologies including, but not limited to:

  • knative
  • OpenFaaS
  • Kubeless
  • Fission
  • Brigade
  • Virtual Kubelet (works with serverless containers like ACI, Fargate, etc but is not FaaS)

Jupyter bills itself as a web application and notebook. It’s getting a lot of buzz but I’ve not heard of it being billed as Serverless.

There are also tools like serverless that can work with numerous technologies including kubeless (on this list) that are workflow solutions.

In addition there are things the CNCF serverless working group has been working on like cloudevents (which has an intro and deep dive out of band from the serverless track).

The serverless track then has 4 of 6 session on knative, 1 of 6 on something else (Jupyter), and sessions on other serverless technologies being rejected.

Can we all see how decisions here could be interpreted with malicious intent and how it could put a negative view on the conference and decision making process? Whether it happened that way or not, people could come to malicious conclusions.

This all leads me to other questions...

Do we want end-user presentations in this space? Since knative is hot but not ready for production some other technology would be used by them. But, it’s useful today and not “hot”. How do we encourage end-users to present here? Is “hot” or useful today more important?

Is a goal diversity? If so, mirroring presentations with only those that are hot doesn’t provide for diversity.

If some of the intent and goal components could be ironed out it would help future decision makers.



-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 9, 2018, at 1:26 PM, Liz Rice <liz@...> wrote:

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 spreadsheet: of ~60 submissions under Serverless, ~40 of them mentioned Knative. If number of submissions has some rough correlation to "what the community is currently interested in" (and I believe it does) then Knative is currently very hot, and we have tried to reflect this in the agenda. There's actually a seventh talk from the Serverless list that we accepted into the Observability track because we felt it straddled both topics. 




On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:15 PM Yaron Haviv <yaronh@...> wrote:

Dan,

 

looking at the schedule, the fact that out of total 6 sessions in the Serverless track there are 4 talks about Knative raises a serious question about the bias of this process

how come the only other two sessions are on OpenFaaS and Jupyter (serverless? really)  and other efforts in the space are left in the cold ?

 

Yaron

 

From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> On Behalf Of Dan Kohn
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 23:35
To: cncf-toc@...


Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon


 

Here is a summary of the discussion so far:



-- 
Liz Rice
@lizrice  | lizrice.com +44 (0) 780 126 1145

4621 - 4640 of 7167