|
I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
|
|
|
Yuri Shkuro
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
|
|
|
Chris Aniszczyk
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall
average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended
KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend
breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
We might want to be careful with data about past conferences. The Cons started with many insiders. Then it was very much about cluster ops and there was regular talk about the lack of apps there. The people represented in those surveys likely do not include many segments we are interested in today. For example, to satisfy operators often does no satisfy app folks. If app folks were under represented the survey won’t be a useful guide for the future.
As far as dissatisfaction goes, the TOC email chain "Thoughts on KubeCon” showed there are a number of folks. I asked around and found more than those who were being vocal. This is what lead me to propose an agenda item.
|
|
|
The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
I'm in favour of the TOC being a focal point for a community discussion on how that community meets. At the same time we should be conscious that cncf events have many stakeholders ie. The foundation, the sponsors, the marketing folks. We are just one input with special focus on projects, developers and users
Making this a meeting topic makes sense to me.
Also having f2f at kubecon is a good idea.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:22 Matt Farina, < matt@...> wrote: The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Chris Aniszczyk
We will schedule something at KubeCon Seattle and put it on the schedule, I'll get it listed in time for the next TOC meeting and bring it up then :)
Alexis can make the call to a lot some time on Nov 6th or 20th for this, we will have a busy schedule due to CNCF project graduation/reviews as a heads up, so I would recommend to take no more than 20-30 minutes.
Also Alexis is correct, there's lots of stakeholders and there's a Marketing Committee that tends to discuss these types of event issues and I encourage you to use that avenue to if you have an organization rep that participates there: https://www.cncf.io/people/marketing-committee/
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I'm in favour of the TOC being a focal point for a community discussion on how that community meets. At the same time we should be conscious that cncf events have many stakeholders ie. The foundation, the sponsors, the marketing folks. We are just one input with special focus on projects, developers and users
Making this a meeting topic makes sense to me.
Also having f2f at kubecon is a good idea.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:22 Matt Farina, < matt@...> wrote: The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.
Best, Ruben
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, < ruben@...> wrote: It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.
Best, Ruben
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Sarah Novotny <sarahnovotny@...>
There are a few things in this discussion that are a serious concern for me....
vendor is being used as a pejorative here. when we talk about vendors having outsized presences, there are also several who have very outsized *contributions* in the community (through code, docs, organizing and even full project donation).
another concern for me is that the metrics quoted from the attendee survey was reframed from 35% of attendees listed attending sessions as their "top reason for attending" to "only a 1/3 attended for the general session technical content?" That's not what was surveyed. Top reason is very different from the reframe. A conference which has ~30% expert (and speaker) attendees 30% intermediate (deeping their experience) attendees and 30% newbie attendees might well have only 30% of the attendees report session content as their *top* reason to attend the event and still be very healthy.
I do not disagree that having more user content is extraordinarily important. However, if we want to also make the event relevant and engaging to a broad audience we have to accept that there are many reasons to attend an event such as this including collaboration with a peer group.
I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s) or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.
sarah
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, < ruben@...> wrote: It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.
Best, Ruben
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Sarah, thanks for calling out the negative language. I didn’t mean to go that route. Sorry about that. I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s) or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.
I agree with Sarah on this.
Do we have our target audiences documented?
Not communicating target audiences and outcomes can cause problems. For example, on the KubeCon thoughts thread there was discussing comparing a serverless conference to the upcoming seattle serverless track where knative has 4 of the 6 slots. I’m not sure what the other serverless conference was but when I went digging the ones I found were focused on developers and app people. knative is not really targeted at app devs, or so I’ve been told, and instead the developers might use something like riff instead. Riff builds on knative. Was our serverless track targeted at a different audience going for a different outcome?
Maybe there wasn’t that much intention put into it. I just wanted to highlight how different audiences and different outcomes in the same space can happen.
It may be worth being explicit on target audiences and outcomes rather than leaving it up to our differing assumptions.
It might also help us highlight gaps we have as well as areas that are currently strong and worth praising.
There are a few things in this discussion that are a serious concern for me....
vendor is being used as a pejorative here. when we talk about vendors having outsized presences, there are also several who have very outsized *contributions* in the community (through code, docs, organizing and even full project donation).
another concern for me is that the metrics quoted from the attendee survey was reframed from 35% of attendees listed attending sessions as their "top reason for attending" to "only a 1/3 attended for the general session technical content?" That's not what was surveyed. Top reason is very different from the reframe. A conference which has ~30% expert (and speaker) attendees 30% intermediate (deeping their experience) attendees and 30% newbie attendees might well have only 30% of the attendees report session content as their *top* reason to attend the event and still be very healthy.
I do not disagree that having more user content is extraordinarily important. However, if we want to also make the event relevant and engaging to a broad audience we have to accept that there are many reasons to attend an event such as this including collaboration with a peer group.
I think like most things in this broader community we do better by focusing on improving outcomes for our target audience(s) or segmenting them if they are incompatible (which I don't think they are) than by restricting things we don't like.
sarah On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:08 AM alexis richardson < alexis@...> wrote: It may be better to serve the community needs through smaller events.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, 16:44 Ruben Orduz, < ruben@...> wrote: It is low. And the fact that "Networking" ranks higher, in my possibly wrong opinion, would lead me to think it's because the vendor-centric character of KubeCon. In community-driven confs which are much more geared toward individual end-users, the hallway/expo halls are ghost towns while the sessions are going. At KubeCon much like OpenStack summits the "hallway track" and expo hall were always bustling -- both share a vendor-centric focus.
Best, Ruben
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)
Only about 1/3 of people attended for the general session technical content? Do we know if that has changed over time? Is this typical compared to other conferences?
I can’t help but wonder, am I wrong in thinking that number is low?
What does it say about the Con if more people are coming to network than lean from the content? What does that mean for vendors?
The information leads me to many questions. Anyone looking into this kind of stuff?
Thanks Matt, I will defer to Alexis as TOC Chair if he wants to make this an agenda item or not at an upcoming meeting. We are happy to offer space at KubeCon Seattle to discuss this topic with staff + TOC if you like in an F2F fashion if that's a better way to do this.
re: Yuri's point, yes we survey after every event, I've attached the report from last KubeCon in Copenhagen. "Feedback from attendees was overwhelmingly positive, with an overall average rating of 4.5 / 5. The top two reasons that people attended KubeCon + CloudNativeCon were for networking (40%) and to attend breakout sessions (35%)"
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:02 PM Yuri Shkuro < shkuro@...> wrote: Has there been a survey of attendees from previous conferences? Is there data that shows attendees dissatisfaction with the content and specific areas?
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:53 AM Matt Farina < matt@...> wrote: I would like to request that we have a discussion in a TOC meeting on the Con technical content. I’m happy to help curate items to discuss on it.
Three ideas I would initially seed the list with are:
- Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
- Should we look to target tracks around types of user roles (e.g., app dev, app ops, cluster ops, project maintainers, management decision makers, etc)? If these kinds of users want to be there it gives vendors a good reason to have booths there, along with being useful to end users. I believe some of these roles are underserved today.
- Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence. This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
These are just questions to talk about. Maybe ideas. Anyone have others?
I would ask that we keep these to constructive ideas to improve future Cons so we have help what comes next.
-- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
Not sure I can make the next meeting, but my thoughts on some of these:
> Should only CNCF projects (direct CNCF projects and Kubernetes SIGs/
> sub-projects) have intros and deep dives on the maintainers track? A
> non-CNCF project has an intro and deep dive this time around.
Yes. If a non-CNCF project can get intro and deep-dive sessions then it
lessens the need to be a CNCF project - and I think waters down our branding.
How will we decide which non-CNCF projects to allow to use of "valuable"
rooms and time-slots that could go to more breakout sessions of CNCF
projects?
> Do we limit number of general sessions per vendor? This came up on
> the list because a vendor can currently have an outsized presence.
> This can lead to competing vendors, including those at the same
> sponsorship levels, feeling they are subsidizing their competition.
I think if we adopt some of the "blind" CFP reviews that's been discussed
then we shouldn't need to enforce these kinds of limits. If one company
dominates then its due to the content of their CFPs - and therefore they
deserve it (hopefully). I think that trying to limit on a per company basis
(while it might feel good to some) will just encourage game playing in the CFP
process - e.g. put some other company as lead presenter (if we even have that
concept) due to who submitted the CFP. Or put another way - let's do the
"blind" CFP reviews first to see how that plays out, and if we're still not
happy with results then we can explore the next "baby step" which might be
to limit sessions per vendor. I'd just prefer to take it slow and not swing
the pendulum too far too quickly on this one.
-Doug
|
|
|
