Date   

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


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Chris Aniszczyk
 

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
 

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




Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

chung@...
 

It's great to hear there's support for more end user talks, since I joined the CNCF to increase end user engagement and satisfaction.

End user talks will be one of my key metrics, and I'm very keen to provide encouragement and feedback for end users and less experienced speakers. I already do this for the Cloud Native London meetup to ensure better diversity of speakers and talk topics.

Personally I like William's suggestion of a two-phase review.

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:34 PM Mark Coleman <mark@...> wrote:
+1 end users often struggle to make their talks as appealing as the “real ones”. Coaching here will help.
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 11:52, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1, great idea


On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 11:27 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.

--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

+1 end users often struggle to make their talks as appealing as the “real ones”. Coaching here will help.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 11:52, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1, great idea


On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 11:27 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.

--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

alexis richardson
 

+1, great idea


On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 11:27 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

Richard Li
 

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

Dan Kohn <dan@...>
 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:59 PM Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vittal@...> wrote:

Is it feasible at all to hold more Kubecons? Minikubecons? The mini version would be more like a day-long meetup, I guess, but with a little bit of backing from CNCF (marketing). Wouldn’t expect people to fly over from all over the world to attend though.

This is like autoscaling for conferences. For emerging /exciting areas it is natural that there are a lot of submissions, and for things to change a lot. By the time a conference presentation actually happens, a lot of information could be obsolete / uninteresting. Mini-conferences would have a shorter time between CFP and conference day. The CFP acceptance rate, I expect, would be closer to 100%.


In a few weeks, we'll be sharing plans for hosting single day events, especially in parts of the world with a lot of interest in cloud native but without easy access to KubeCon + CloudNativeCon North America, Europe, and China. The first couple will be in Bangalore and Seoul.

However, I don't expect them to satiate the demand for KubeCon presentations at all. They will be single day, single track events with most of the content at an introductory level and a small amount of intermediate content. Most KubeCon content is Intermediate or higher: https://kccna18.sched.com/company/Intermediate

I think the best alternative to presenting at KubeCon + CloudNativeCon (besides other conferences) is the network of CNCF Meetup groups around the world: https://meetups.cncf.io

We're looking at a facility in Bangalore that can hold over 1000 people. We'll run a CFP process for the talks and I expect very high demand for the small number of speaking slots.
--
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
 

I'm strongly in favour of additional, community level mini conferences, at the scale of promcon for example.  Having those could justify some rules aimed at improving the mega conferences.



On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, 06:36 Mark Coleman, <mark@...> wrote:
I agree that asking for more talk information up front would be useful.

I also agree that we should be considering what is important to a conference attendee.

Chiradeep, there are plans to run one day events but I don’t have more information to hand.

Perhaps Dan can help?
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 04:59, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vittal@...> wrote:

Is it feasible at all to hold more Kubecons? Minikubecons? The mini version would be more like a day-long meetup, I guess, but with a little bit of backing from CNCF (marketing). Wouldn’t expect people to fly over from all over the world to attend though.

This is like autoscaling for conferences. For emerging /exciting areas it is natural that there are a lot of submissions, and for things to change a lot. By the time a conference presentation actually happens, a lot of information could be obsolete / uninteresting. Mini-conferences would have a shorter time between CFP and conference day. The CFP acceptance rate, I expect, would be closer to 100%.

 

--

Chiradeep Vittal

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:23 AM
To: "alex@..." <alex@...>
Cc: "nchase@..." <nchase@...>, "quinton.hoole@..." <quinton.hoole@...>, "bryan@..." <bryan@...>, "anthony@..." <anthony@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

The point of double-blind is not to increase diversity, it is to improve quality.

Turns out bias leads people to select based on things other than the quality of the work.

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:21 PM Alex Clemmer <alex@...> wrote:

I think it's important that tactical measures (e.g., double-blind, vendor talk limits, etc.) should be in the service of a general goal. IMO the first responsibility of conference organizers is to the conference attendees. A primary goal might look lie: make an engaging and useful conference, that fosters community development of cloud native software.

There is always a push among talk proposers to have a completely "objective" admissions process, but (1) an "objective" admissions process may well make for a worse conference, and (2) it is impossible for the committee to not impose some editorial view in the talks they select. So you may as well embrace it.

To the issue at hand: IME the best reason to have double-blind reviews is that it increases the amount of diversity, both in submissions and in balance of accepts. I reckon this is for much the same way that blind auditions helped diversity in orchestras.

What I very seriously doubt is that double-blind reviews will have the affect Bryan seems to think it will. In practice, most talks proposed about interesting technology (linkerd/Istio/Envoy, say) will be inextricably linked to the vendors that produce the technology, and the authoritative credibility they carry. Likewise most "customer success" talks will be linked to the customer itself. It will be harder on balance to judge talks on their merit without some idea of the "believability" of these authors. This is in contrast to scientific papers, where the submission process is geared towards papers that explore some idea abstract the people involved, excepting talks from industry, which will carry more weight because they have operational expertise, even though they are therefore less anonymous.

There may be other reasons to do double-blind review, but personally I can't think of them.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection notices to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too much marketing pitch”, “not open source”, “previously presented”, “duplicated submission”, “off topic" etc) to help submitters to improve their chances in future (and perhaps also clarify any possible misperceptions by reviewers, as the submissions are by necessity brief). As just one illustrative data point, all 10 of my submissions to KubeCon China and US were rejected, and none of the rejections seem explainable by any of the “how to improve the odds” guidelines.  So I have no idea what to do differently in future.

 

I recognize that it's not always that cut-and-dried, BTW; I've been on the selection team for several conferences and sometimes it's just a matter of "there were 10 slots and you ranked #11".  But not always.   

--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

I agree that asking for more talk information up front would be useful.

I also agree that we should be considering what is important to a conference attendee.

Chiradeep, there are plans to run one day events but I don’t have more information to hand.

Perhaps Dan can help?

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 04:59, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vittal@...> wrote:

Is it feasible at all to hold more Kubecons? Minikubecons? The mini version would be more like a day-long meetup, I guess, but with a little bit of backing from CNCF (marketing). Wouldn’t expect people to fly over from all over the world to attend though.

This is like autoscaling for conferences. For emerging /exciting areas it is natural that there are a lot of submissions, and for things to change a lot. By the time a conference presentation actually happens, a lot of information could be obsolete / uninteresting. Mini-conferences would have a shorter time between CFP and conference day. The CFP acceptance rate, I expect, would be closer to 100%.

 

--

Chiradeep Vittal

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:23 AM
To: "alex@..." <alex@...>
Cc: "nchase@..." <nchase@...>, "quinton.hoole@..." <quinton.hoole@...>, "bryan@..." <bryan@...>, "anthony@..." <anthony@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

The point of double-blind is not to increase diversity, it is to improve quality.

Turns out bias leads people to select based on things other than the quality of the work.

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:21 PM Alex Clemmer <alex@...> wrote:

I think it's important that tactical measures (e.g., double-blind, vendor talk limits, etc.) should be in the service of a general goal. IMO the first responsibility of conference organizers is to the conference attendees. A primary goal might look lie: make an engaging and useful conference, that fosters community development of cloud native software.

There is always a push among talk proposers to have a completely "objective" admissions process, but (1) an "objective" admissions process may well make for a worse conference, and (2) it is impossible for the committee to not impose some editorial view in the talks they select. So you may as well embrace it.

To the issue at hand: IME the best reason to have double-blind reviews is that it increases the amount of diversity, both in submissions and in balance of accepts. I reckon this is for much the same way that blind auditions helped diversity in orchestras.

What I very seriously doubt is that double-blind reviews will have the affect Bryan seems to think it will. In practice, most talks proposed about interesting technology (linkerd/Istio/Envoy, say) will be inextricably linked to the vendors that produce the technology, and the authoritative credibility they carry. Likewise most "customer success" talks will be linked to the customer itself. It will be harder on balance to judge talks on their merit without some idea of the "believability" of these authors. This is in contrast to scientific papers, where the submission process is geared towards papers that explore some idea abstract the people involved, excepting talks from industry, which will carry more weight because they have operational expertise, even though they are therefore less anonymous.

There may be other reasons to do double-blind review, but personally I can't think of them.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection notices to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too much marketing pitch”, “not open source”, “previously presented”, “duplicated submission”, “off topic" etc) to help submitters to improve their chances in future (and perhaps also clarify any possible misperceptions by reviewers, as the submissions are by necessity brief). As just one illustrative data point, all 10 of my submissions to KubeCon China and US were rejected, and none of the rejections seem explainable by any of the “how to improve the odds” guidelines.  So I have no idea what to do differently in future.

 

I recognize that it's not always that cut-and-dried, BTW; I've been on the selection team for several conferences and sometimes it's just a matter of "there were 10 slots and you ranked #11".  But not always.   

--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: Thoughts on KubeCon

Chiradeep Vittal
 

Is it feasible at all to hold more Kubecons? Minikubecons? The mini version would be more like a day-long meetup, I guess, but with a little bit of backing from CNCF (marketing). Wouldn’t expect people to fly over from all over the world to attend though.

This is like autoscaling for conferences. For emerging /exciting areas it is natural that there are a lot of submissions, and for things to change a lot. By the time a conference presentation actually happens, a lot of information could be obsolete / uninteresting. Mini-conferences would have a shorter time between CFP and conference day. The CFP acceptance rate, I expect, would be closer to 100%.

 

--

Chiradeep Vittal

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Bob Wise <bob@...>
Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 8:23 AM
To: "alex@..." <alex@...>
Cc: "nchase@..." <nchase@...>, "quinton.hoole@..." <quinton.hoole@...>, "bryan@..." <bryan@...>, "anthony@..." <anthony@...>, CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Thoughts on KubeCon

 

The point of double-blind is not to increase diversity, it is to improve quality.

Turns out bias leads people to select based on things other than the quality of the work.

 

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:21 PM Alex Clemmer <alex@...> wrote:

I think it's important that tactical measures (e.g., double-blind, vendor talk limits, etc.) should be in the service of a general goal. IMO the first responsibility of conference organizers is to the conference attendees. A primary goal might look lie: make an engaging and useful conference, that fosters community development of cloud native software.

There is always a push among talk proposers to have a completely "objective" admissions process, but (1) an "objective" admissions process may well make for a worse conference, and (2) it is impossible for the committee to not impose some editorial view in the talks they select. So you may as well embrace it.

To the issue at hand: IME the best reason to have double-blind reviews is that it increases the amount of diversity, both in submissions and in balance of accepts. I reckon this is for much the same way that blind auditions helped diversity in orchestras.

What I very seriously doubt is that double-blind reviews will have the affect Bryan seems to think it will. In practice, most talks proposed about interesting technology (linkerd/Istio/Envoy, say) will be inextricably linked to the vendors that produce the technology, and the authoritative credibility they carry. Likewise most "customer success" talks will be linked to the customer itself. It will be harder on balance to judge talks on their merit without some idea of the "believability" of these authors. This is in contrast to scientific papers, where the submission process is geared towards papers that explore some idea abstract the people involved, excepting talks from industry, which will carry more weight because they have operational expertise, even though they are therefore less anonymous.

There may be other reasons to do double-blind review, but personally I can't think of them.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nick Chase <nchase@...> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:

I also think that it would be super-useful for submission rejection notices to be accompanied by a few brief reviewer notes (e.g. “too much marketing pitch”, “not open source”, “previously presented”, “duplicated submission”, “off topic" etc) to help submitters to improve their chances in future (and perhaps also clarify any possible misperceptions by reviewers, as the submissions are by necessity brief). As just one illustrative data point, all 10 of my submissions to KubeCon China and US were rejected, and none of the rejections seem explainable by any of the “how to improve the odds” guidelines.  So I have no idea what to do differently in future.

 

I recognize that it's not always that cut-and-dried, BTW; I've been on the selection team for several conferences and sometimes it's just a matter of "there were 10 slots and you ranked #11".  But not always.   

4701 - 4720 of 7197