Date   

Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Liz Rice
 

Hi all from a current co-chair :-)  Some great constructive ideas here, this is turning into a good discussion.

On the double-blinding, I was involved in discussions about this after Austin and again after Copenhagen. Both times we came to the conclusion that double-blind wouldn't work, mostly for the reasons Alena & Justin described. I don't recall hearing the two-phase suggestion before though, and I think this is really worth exploring further. 

We'd have to reduce the number of submissions to make that in any way manageable. The idea of beefing up the CFP requirements could help (but is it possible we will put off some really knowledgable folks from contributing if we make it more onerous?) I think we need a bigger pool of review committee participants (who actually do it diligently) and perhaps should solicit more widely for volunteers for that.  

I'm inclined to say we shouldn't allow more than two submissions from any individual, but I don't think it's fair to impose submission limits per company - partly because it would be hard for them to manage, but more importantly this would likely end up with fewer new voices getting a chance, as the companies will no doubt push for their star performers to be on stage. 

On feedback - you can get it if you ask! For Copenhagen I gave individual feedback to everyone who asked via the speakers email (I guess that was about 20 people). I hope I'm not going to regret saying this as obviously that's not a scalable process and I may have just opened the floodgates! 

But based on that experience it would be a LOT of work to give meaningful feedback for every submission. You might imagine you could just forward the reviewer comments, but in practice, for the vast majority the comments don't by themselves explain why a talk didn't make the cut. For example, many talks get a perfectly decent score and positive comments, but still don't get picked. They might have simply been up against even better talks, or we had to choose between similar talks, or (believe it or not) we felt we couldn't have any more talks in a track from a given company, and so on. The reviewer comments wouldn't reflect any of that. One concern here is a lot of people seeing the positive comments and thinking they had been unfairly overlooked because obviously there was nothing wrong with their submission. If it's not useful, actionable feedback there's no point sending it. 

Perhaps we should document more of the co-chair decisions as we go along? Definitely worth considering, though it adds up to more work for the co-chairs (not that it will affect me as my term comes to an end after Seattle). 

On the CFP request for resources, for Copenhagen we didn't have this and I ended up doing lots of googling about submitters. Based on that I suggested asking for resources to offer submitters the chance to show off their best work rather than have us trying to guess what to look at. Why do we need to see this? Trying to establish whether folks are subject matter experts, or prone to vendor pitching, or trying to identify potential exciting keynote speakers... 

As I said, I really do think we should explore the ideas in this thread, especially the two-phase process, but let's not let perfection be the enemy of the good here. In one of the "should we double-blind" discussions one of my predecessors made the point that the outcome is more important than the process; if the end result is an agenda that the community finds engaging and exciting, that represents a diversity of viewpoints, and that drives forward the technology and adoption of cloud native, then we're in a pretty good place. It's my firm belief that the community want to see a mix of tech talks and end-user stories; talks by subject matter experts as well as new voices; diversity in all dimensions including company, but recognising that there are an awful lot of talented, knowledgable people working full-time on cloud native in a small number of companies. I'm sure we made mistakes, but we really did try our best to try to reflect all that in the agenda. 

I'm really happy to see constructive engagement about all this. But time presses and I must, for now, fly! 

Liz



On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:10 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Hi

For the record, this list is probably the best meeting place of record for the community to air requests and commentary.  So, yes, lots of people are here and listening to everything that is being said.  We all want kubecon to get better and better so please keep the flow of thoughts coming

It is of course OK to issue rebuttals to Bryan.

A


On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 16:53 Bryan Cantrill, <bryan@...> wrote:

I think it's disconcerting (if somewhat comical) that the concern that the ideas shared here would get rebuttals -- a concern that I and I think many members of the TOC also likely share -- itself got a rebuttal.  I think the discussion here is terrific, but I am concerned that the tone from the CNCF seems to be more of trying to explain how these concerns either aren't real concerns or are already being addressed.  I hope that staff is hearing that there is broad consensus that change is needed -- and that this should be embraced as a positive and natural consequence of the popularity of both the technologies and the conference rather than something to be resisted or explained away.

In particular: I very much share the concern about the length limit imposed by the CFP.  900 characters is absurdly short (the "3 tweet" characterization is apt); a 900 word limit would be much more reasonable.  I also share the concern about the dividing up of the proposal between "abstract" and "benefit to the community" and so on; a good abstract should contain everything that is needed to evaluate it -- and that evaluation criteria should be clearly spelled out.  By encouraging longer, more comprehensive abstracts, you will be encouraging better written ones -- which will give the PC a better basis for being double-blind in early rounds.  As a concrete step, I might encourage a group to be drawn up that consists of folks that have experience in both KubeCon, in other practitioner conferences, and in academic conferences (a few of whom have already identified themselves on this thread!); I think that their broad perspective is invaluable.

         - Bryan


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:22 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:18 AM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.
 
This sort of feels like the ideas shared here are going to get rebuttals. Can we instead take all of this as ideas to look at how we refine and improve things in the future? Where we can intentionally lead the efforts to continuously improve and adapt as things change.

The conference and the processes associated with it have iterated significantly each time. I assure you we are all reading this feedback carefully and thinking through the implications of adopting it. I think there is less status quo bias than you might suspect. 

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


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

alexis richardson
 

Hi

For the record, this list is probably the best meeting place of record for the community to air requests and commentary.  So, yes, lots of people are here and listening to everything that is being said.  We all want kubecon to get better and better so please keep the flow of thoughts coming

It is of course OK to issue rebuttals to Bryan.

A


On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 16:53 Bryan Cantrill, <bryan@...> wrote:

I think it's disconcerting (if somewhat comical) that the concern that the ideas shared here would get rebuttals -- a concern that I and I think many members of the TOC also likely share -- itself got a rebuttal.  I think the discussion here is terrific, but I am concerned that the tone from the CNCF seems to be more of trying to explain how these concerns either aren't real concerns or are already being addressed.  I hope that staff is hearing that there is broad consensus that change is needed -- and that this should be embraced as a positive and natural consequence of the popularity of both the technologies and the conference rather than something to be resisted or explained away.

In particular: I very much share the concern about the length limit imposed by the CFP.  900 characters is absurdly short (the "3 tweet" characterization is apt); a 900 word limit would be much more reasonable.  I also share the concern about the dividing up of the proposal between "abstract" and "benefit to the community" and so on; a good abstract should contain everything that is needed to evaluate it -- and that evaluation criteria should be clearly spelled out.  By encouraging longer, more comprehensive abstracts, you will be encouraging better written ones -- which will give the PC a better basis for being double-blind in early rounds.  As a concrete step, I might encourage a group to be drawn up that consists of folks that have experience in both KubeCon, in other practitioner conferences, and in academic conferences (a few of whom have already identified themselves on this thread!); I think that their broad perspective is invaluable.

         - Bryan


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:22 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:18 AM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.
 
This sort of feels like the ideas shared here are going to get rebuttals. Can we instead take all of this as ideas to look at how we refine and improve things in the future? Where we can intentionally lead the efforts to continuously improve and adapt as things change.

The conference and the processes associated with it have iterated significantly each time. I assure you we are all reading this feedback carefully and thinking through the implications of adopting it. I think there is less status quo bias than you might suspect. 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
 


I think it's disconcerting (if somewhat comical) that the concern that the ideas shared here would get rebuttals -- a concern that I and I think many members of the TOC also likely share -- itself got a rebuttal.  I think the discussion here is terrific, but I am concerned that the tone from the CNCF seems to be more of trying to explain how these concerns either aren't real concerns or are already being addressed.  I hope that staff is hearing that there is broad consensus that change is needed -- and that this should be embraced as a positive and natural consequence of the popularity of both the technologies and the conference rather than something to be resisted or explained away.

In particular: I very much share the concern about the length limit imposed by the CFP.  900 characters is absurdly short (the "3 tweet" characterization is apt); a 900 word limit would be much more reasonable.  I also share the concern about the dividing up of the proposal between "abstract" and "benefit to the community" and so on; a good abstract should contain everything that is needed to evaluate it -- and that evaluation criteria should be clearly spelled out.  By encouraging longer, more comprehensive abstracts, you will be encouraging better written ones -- which will give the PC a better basis for being double-blind in early rounds.  As a concrete step, I might encourage a group to be drawn up that consists of folks that have experience in both KubeCon, in other practitioner conferences, and in academic conferences (a few of whom have already identified themselves on this thread!); I think that their broad perspective is invaluable.

         - Bryan


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:22 AM Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:18 AM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.
 
This sort of feels like the ideas shared here are going to get rebuttals. Can we instead take all of this as ideas to look at how we refine and improve things in the future? Where we can intentionally lead the efforts to continuously improve and adapt as things change.

The conference and the processes associated with it have iterated significantly each time. I assure you we are all reading this feedback carefully and thinking through the implications of adopting it. I think there is less status quo bias than you might suspect. 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:11 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:
As for the CFP, one problem I saw when submitting a talk for Falco is that the concept "end-user" is very tightly scoped. I submitted a joint talk with a Falco end-user (Yammer/Microsoft). In the CFP when it came to select if this talk was from a "end-user" I was given a list of companies that appeared to be pulled from here: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/. Not all "end-users" are going to be part of that list, and we are most likely eliminating "end-users" because their parent company is not on that list (something which is probably out of the individual contributors hands).

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

Based on some ongoing confusion on this, we're going to add a checkbox to the 2019 CFPs (below the organization field) saying:

Is your organization an end user? End user organizations do not offer cloud native services to their customers. End users generally do not have a commercial product on the Cloud Native Landscape <https://landscape.cncf.io/format=landscape> (though they may have created an open source project to share their internal technology). For more information, please see the kind of companies in CNCF's End User Community <https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/>.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com
 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:18 AM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.
 
This sort of feels like the ideas shared here are going to get rebuttals. Can we instead take all of this as ideas to look at how we refine and improve things in the future? Where we can intentionally lead the efforts to continuously improve and adapt as things change.

The conference and the processes associated with it have iterated significantly each time. I assure you we are all reading this feedback carefully and thinking through the implications of adopting it. I think there is less status quo bias than you might suspect. 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Matt Farina
 

Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.

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

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com



On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Dan Kohn <dan@...> wrote:

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:10 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Is anyone capturing all this feedback somewhere?

Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

alexis richardson
 

Yes


On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 16:10 Matt Farina, <matt@...> wrote:
Is anyone capturing all this feedback somewhere?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:10 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
Is anyone capturing all this feedback somewhere?

Yes, we're putting together a Google Doc with comments and the conference co-chairs will be providing some responses.
--
Dan Kohn <dan@...>
Executive Director, Cloud Native Computing Foundation https://www.cncf.io
+1-415-233-1000 https://www.dankohn.com

 


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
 

Sorry yeah, to add to this I would like to stress I don't think you
all will ever be able to match the community run conferences like
that. Mostly because at the end of the day the foundation does work
_for the vendors_, it's a 501c6. _But_ I do think by focusing and
accepting more of the end user talks, even if there were only a few
submitted I can cound on two hands the number of end users who told me
their talks we denied so thats not good. Solve the small things first
since I do think trying to match the community conferences is against
the values of the Linux Foundation.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 8:11 AM Michael Ducy <michael.ducy@...> wrote:

Adding to Jessie's point, the Linux community has a number of "Linux Fests" that are locally organized conferences. Ohio Linux Fest, SoCal Linux Expo (SCaLE), Texas Linux Fest, etc.

The small regional conference model has been very successful in all of these examples. DevOpsDays is another example that was given and to provide context, there are over 71 locally organized DevOpsDays in 2018 throughout the world. It's a completely volunteer ran organization, and each local event is given a degree of autonomy. We just finished my local edition here in Columbus, Ohio and we had a number of attendees from the region (Cincinnati, Louisville, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh). The majority were of the "end-user" persona, and vendors that did attend were primarily there because they sponsored.

As for the CFP, one problem I saw when submitting a talk for Falco is that the concept "end-user" is very tightly scoped. I submitted a joint talk with a Falco end-user (Yammer/Microsoft). In the CFP when it came to select if this talk was from a "end-user" I was given a list of companies that appeared to be pulled from here: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/. Not all "end-users" are going to be part of that list, and we are most likely eliminating "end-users" because their parent company is not on that list (something which is probably out of the individual contributors hands).



On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:57 AM Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:

BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors.
In the Linux world that's equivalent to Linux Conf Australia (and
others) which I gave a keynote at this year. Entirely community
conference. Lot's of work by the organizers but all the main kernel
devs come out often and there's a kernel dev summit as well. It's
really well done.

And yes tbh I have long predicted the same would happen in the k8s world.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:53 AM Dan Hubbard <dan@...> wrote:

BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors.

Started out, and still is in some cases, adjacent to the big conference on a different stage but then branched out to regionals and has worked very well.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:42 AM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:

As a data point, this model has worked fantastically well for PyCon. There are national, regional, state and city conferences. Some have PSF sponsorship, some others just marketing and some wholly self-sufficient. They vary in length and size. Some single-day, single-track, others week long, multi-track. The key is empowering and supporting the local teams.

While in the subject of CFP process, I feel before you implement double-blind or any scheme to improve selection, you must improve the CFP itself. One the one hand we ask proposers to be thorough on the other hand we only allow 900 *characters*. I don’t think any selection committee can make a truly judicious selection of proposals based on 3 tweets’ worth of abstract. I’ve seen this same pattern of short proposal abstract in a different conference I was track chair for; it wasn’t pretty and this should be fixed as priority 0 for next cncf/kubecons, IMO.

Best,
Ruben

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM 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:
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 <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



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu


--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Michael Ducy
 

Adding to Jessie's point, the Linux community has a number of "Linux Fests" that are locally organized conferences. Ohio Linux Fest, SoCal Linux Expo (SCaLE), Texas Linux Fest, etc.

The small regional conference model has been very successful in all of these examples. DevOpsDays is another example that was given and to provide context, there are over 71 locally organized DevOpsDays in 2018 throughout the world. It's a completely volunteer ran organization, and each local event is given a degree of autonomy. We just finished my local edition here in Columbus, Ohio and we had a number of attendees from the region (Cincinnati, Louisville, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh). The majority were of the "end-user" persona, and vendors that did attend were primarily there because they sponsored.

As for the CFP, one problem I saw when submitting a talk for Falco is that the concept "end-user" is very tightly scoped. I submitted a joint talk with a Falco end-user (Yammer/Microsoft). In the CFP when it came to select if this talk was from a "end-user" I was given a list of companies that appeared to be pulled from here: https://www.cncf.io/people/end-user-community/. Not all "end-users" are going to be part of that list, and we are most likely eliminating "end-users" because their parent company is not on that list (something which is probably out of the individual contributors hands).



On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:57 AM Jessica Frazelle via Lists.Cncf.Io <me=jessfraz.com@...> wrote:
> BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors.

In the Linux world that's equivalent to Linux Conf Australia (and
others) which I gave a keynote at this year. Entirely community
conference. Lot's of work by the organizers but all the main kernel
devs come out often and there's a kernel dev summit as well. It's
really well done.

And yes tbh I have long predicted the same would happen in the k8s world.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:53 AM Dan Hubbard <dan@...> wrote:
>
> BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors.
>
> Started out, and still is in some cases, adjacent to the big conference on a different stage but then branched out to regionals and has worked very well.
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:42 AM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
>>
>> As a data point, this model has worked fantastically well for PyCon. There are national, regional, state and city conferences. Some have PSF sponsorship, some others just marketing and some wholly self-sufficient. They vary in length and size. Some single-day, single-track, others week long, multi-track. The key is empowering and supporting the local teams.
>>
>> While in the subject of CFP process, I feel before you implement double-blind or any scheme to improve selection, you must improve the CFP itself. One the one hand we ask proposers to be thorough on the other hand we only allow 900 *characters*. I don’t think any selection committee can make a truly judicious selection of proposals based on 3 tweets’ worth of abstract. I’ve seen this same pattern of short proposal abstract in a different conference I was track chair for; it wasn’t pretty and this should be fixed as priority 0 for next cncf/kubecons, IMO.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ruben
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM 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:
>>>> 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 <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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC  511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Wilson, Dan <dan.wilson01@...>
 

As an end user I stopped submitting talks after a few conferences in a row not getting selected so I suspect there are just so many submissions it’s easy to get drowned out.

 

I like the idea of capping submissions to increase the value of what is submitted but I’m not sure that would help. Is there real data that could determine if would or not? Do we have submission counts vs selection counts by company or some such figure which could be used for modeling out a good limit? Even then how could you determine if the result would actually be something better?

 

The only other option is probably to let the internet vote for it and we all know that’s a terrible idea :)

 

-Dan

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io" <briangrant=google.com@...>
Reply-To: "briangrant@..." <briangrant@...>
Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:12 PM
To: Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

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


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Matt Farina
 

Is anyone capturing all this feedback somewhere?

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Geri Jennings
 

+1 on improving the CFP by providing more space for submitters to write a more detailed abstract. In the interest of keeping abstracts shorter (if this is a concern for conference programs) you might add an additional section for a “talk description” that can provide more details to the abstract reviewers on what the talk will contain and how it fits within the larger context of the conference.

Geri Jennings

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Puja Abbassi <puja@...>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:51 AM
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

+1, improving the CFP itself should be prio 1 (or 0). As Yuan Chen also mentioned above this is what many of us who had touch points with academia are used to and this is the very basis for being able to judge blindly at all. They also mentioned good practices for CFP that would help with increasing quality of submissions.

With the current character limits it is almost impossible to judge a talk based on this alone. Speakers are trying to get around this by spreading talk info throughout "abstract", "benefit to the community", and their "bio", which results in sub-optimal entries for the program. Here the abstract shown in the program could be separate from the actual talk submission, so it can be a real teaser for the talk.


_______________________________________________
This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error.


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Jessica Frazelle <me@...>
 

BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors.
In the Linux world that's equivalent to Linux Conf Australia (and
others) which I gave a keynote at this year. Entirely community
conference. Lot's of work by the organizers but all the main kernel
devs come out often and there's a kernel dev summit as well. It's
really well done.

And yes tbh I have long predicted the same would happen in the k8s world.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:53 AM Dan Hubbard <dan@...> wrote:

BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors.

Started out, and still is in some cases, adjacent to the big conference on a different stage but then branched out to regionals and has worked very well.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:42 AM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:

As a data point, this model has worked fantastically well for PyCon. There are national, regional, state and city conferences. Some have PSF sponsorship, some others just marketing and some wholly self-sufficient. They vary in length and size. Some single-day, single-track, others week long, multi-track. The key is empowering and supporting the local teams.

While in the subject of CFP process, I feel before you implement double-blind or any scheme to improve selection, you must improve the CFP itself. One the one hand we ask proposers to be thorough on the other hand we only allow 900 *characters*. I don’t think any selection committee can make a truly judicious selection of proposals based on 3 tweets’ worth of abstract. I’ve seen this same pattern of short proposal abstract in a different conference I was track chair for; it wasn’t pretty and this should be fixed as priority 0 for next cncf/kubecons, IMO.

Best,
Ruben

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM 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:
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 <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



--


Jessie Frazelle
4096R / D4C4 DD60 0D66 F65A 8EFC 511E 18F3 685C 0022 BFF3
pgp.mit.edu


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Dan Hubbard
 

BSides has been the security reaction to larger conferences with vendors. 

Started out, and still is in some cases, adjacent to the big conference on a different stage but then branched out to regionals and has worked very well. 

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:42 AM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
As a data point, this model has worked fantastically well for PyCon. There are national, regional, state and city conferences. Some have PSF sponsorship, some others just marketing and some wholly self-sufficient. They vary in length and size. Some single-day, single-track, others week long, multi-track. The key is empowering and supporting the local teams.

While in the subject of CFP process, I feel before you implement double-blind or any scheme to improve selection, you must improve the CFP itself. One the one hand we ask proposers to be thorough on the other hand we only allow 900 *characters*. I don’t think any selection committee can make a truly judicious selection of proposals based on 3 tweets’ worth of abstract. I’ve seen this same pattern of short proposal abstract in a different conference I was track chair for; it wasn’t pretty and this should be fixed as priority 0 for next cncf/kubecons, IMO.

Best,
Ruben

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM 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

Puja Abbassi
 

+1, improving the CFP itself should be prio 1 (or 0). As Yuan Chen also mentioned above this is what many of us who had touch points with academia are used to and this is the very basis for being able to judge blindly at all. They also mentioned good practices for CFP that would help with increasing quality of submissions.

With the current character limits it is almost impossible to judge a talk based on this alone. Speakers are trying to get around this by spreading talk info throughout "abstract", "benefit to the community", and their "bio", which results in sub-optimal entries for the program. Here the abstract shown in the program could be separate from the actual talk submission, so it can be a real teaser for the talk.


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

As a data point, this model has worked fantastically well for PyCon. There are national, regional, state and city conferences. Some have PSF sponsorship, some others just marketing and some wholly self-sufficient. They vary in length and size. Some single-day, single-track, others week long, multi-track. The key is empowering and supporting the local teams.

While in the subject of CFP process, I feel before you implement double-blind or any scheme to improve selection, you must improve the CFP itself. One the one hand we ask proposers to be thorough on the other hand we only allow 900 *characters*. I don’t think any selection committee can make a truly judicious selection of proposals based on 3 tweets’ worth of abstract. I’ve seen this same pattern of short proposal abstract in a different conference I was track chair for; it wasn’t pretty and this should be fixed as priority 0 for next cncf/kubecons, IMO.

Best,
Ruben

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM 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

Matt Farina
 

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

Michael Ducy
 

I agree with the need for coaching of end users. I actually sent an email last night that I thought was to the list, but didn't reply to the group.

One of the problems with soliciting talks from end users is that they are often inexperienced in conferences, presenting, submitting to a CFP, writing a compelling abstract, etc. So while we can ask them to submit more talks, in my experience there needs to be some mentoring done to help these people be successful. 

Bridget Kromhout does an excellent job of this with DevOpsDays Minneapolis. She actively seeks out underrepresented voices and mentors them through the CFP process, slide review, public speaking, etc. 

Maybe this would be a good use of the CNCF Ambassadors or CNCF Speakers Bureau? Leverage those people as mentors for end users to help guide them through the entire process.


On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:27 AM Richard Li <richard@...> wrote:
There seems to be a recognition that more real-world / end user / practitioner talks would be good, because we don't want an echo chamber of ideas.

One suggestion would be to provide more support & coaching for end users who want to submit talks. The vendors & hip cloud companies generally have cultures that are very supportive of speaking at conferences. But many other kinds of companies require more cajoling and support. A lot of times when I talk to an engineer at one of these companies and suggest a talk, the feedback they give me is "No, my stuff really isn't that interesting, and I also have to talk to my manager to get approval, and PR, etc." If we could find ways to support these folks in terms of helping them with their abstract, iterating on a presentation, etc. -- I think we could improve both diversity & quality.


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Camille Fournier
 

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

4661 - 4680 of 7167