Improvement Feedback on KubeCon/CloudNativeCon NA 2018


Matt Farina
 

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




alexis richardson
 

+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Dee Kumar <dkumar@...>
 

Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535


Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

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


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:47 PM Dee Kumar <dkumar@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535


alexis richardson
 

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



On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 23:47 Dee Kumar, <dkumar@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535


Sonya Koptyev <sonya@...>
 

+1 on track chairs, especially aligned to the new category structures would work really well. 

Thanks,
Sonya

Sonya Koptyev | Director of Evangelism | m: +1 425 505 0100



On Dec 18, 2018, 3:59 PM -0800, alexis richardson <alexis@...>, wrote:
As the chairs are volunteering in spare time, I suggest that more support is necessary.



On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 23:47 Dee Kumar, <dkumar@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535


Quinton Hoole
 

Thanks Matt

Nice write-up.  For me, the main high-level take-away from the session was this:

Lets give attendees (primarily end users) what they’re looking for (in several dimensions).  To do that, lets understand better what they want, by gathering some hard data.  Then explicitly feed that back into the design, talk selection etc.  This in contrast to designing it around what sponsors want, what chairs want, what the talk selectors want, etc, in the absence of the above data.

Q


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Matt Farina <matt@...>
Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 07:50
To: CNCF TOC <cncf-toc@...>, Janet Kuo <chiachenk@...>, "bryanliles@..." <bryanliles@...>, Liz Rice <liz@...>, Dan Kohn <dan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...>
Subject: [cncf-toc] Improvement Feedback on KubeCon/CloudNativeCon NA 2018

At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Dee Kumar <dkumar@...>
 

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

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:59 PM Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
As the chairs are volunteering in spare time, I suggest that more support is necessary.



On Tue, 18 Dec 2018, 23:47 Dee Kumar, <dkumar@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535



--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535


Arun Gupta
 

+1 for track chairs

I've been part of several program committees over last several years. And this one factor really helps build a great agenda. The chairs still oversee the agenda but they deal with it like a microservices-based application as opposed to one big monolith.

Arun

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com






Matt Farina
 

Lets give attendees (primarily end users) what they’re looking for (in several dimensions).  To do that, lets understand better what they want, by gathering some hard data.  Then explicitly feed that back into the design, talk selection etc.  This in contrast to designing it around what sponsors want, what chairs want, what the talk selectors want, etc, in the absence of the above data.

Q

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


Sarah Conway <sconway@...>
 

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



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:50 AM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com





--
Sarah Conway
Vice President of Communications 
The Linux Foundation
(978) 578-5300  Cell
Skype:  sarah.k.conway


Shannon Williams
 

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

Also, couldn’t agree with Matt more that the sponsored sessions in the keynotes really need to be identified as “sponsored”. I think they really detract from the flow of the keynote.  Perhaps  we should consider eliminating this benefit from Diamond sponsors, especially since the Diamond sponsorship tier has been over subscribed for the last few events.  The keynotes are so important, and we really 

Otherwise great feedback. 

Best Regards,

Shannon Williams
+1 (650) 521-6902


On Dec 18, 2018, at 3:23 PM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
  • Keynotes with a rounded room
  • Daycare for kids
  • Many women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
  • Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of this
  • Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layout
  • Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
  • Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
  • Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
  • The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
  • Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
  • Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)
  • Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
  • Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
  • Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
  • Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
  • Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
  • Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
  • Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
  • Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
  • Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the fact
  • Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditation
  • Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the works
  • Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
  • Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each other
  • Live captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com




Michael Hausenblas <mhausenb@...>
 

Thanks a lot for putting this together, Matt!

Huge +1 for track chairs.

Cheers,
Michael

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Shannon Williams <shannon@...>
Reply: Shannon Williams <shannon@...>
Date: 19 December 2018 at 08:34:06
To: alexis richardson <alexis@...>
Cc: Matt Farina <matt@...>, CNCF TOC
<cncf-toc@...>, Janet Kuo <chiachenk@...>,
bryanliles@... <bryanliles@...>, Liz Rice
<liz@...>, Dan Kohn <dan@...>, Chris Aniszczyk
<caniszczyk@...>
Subject:  Re: [cncf-toc] Improvement Feedback on KubeCon/CloudNativeCon NA 2018

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

Also, couldn’t agree with Matt more that the sponsored sessions in the keynotes really
need to be identified as “sponsored”. I think they really detract from the flow of the
keynote. Perhaps we should consider eliminating this benefit from Diamond sponsors,
especially since the Diamond sponsorship tier has been over subscribed for the last
few events. The keynotes are so important, and we really

Otherwise great feedback.

Best Regards,

Shannon Williams
+1 (650) 521-6902
shannon@...


On Dec 18, 2018, at 3:23 PM, alexis richardson >
wrote:

+1 for track chairs!

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs
achieve continuity.

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina >
wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future.
This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with
some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting
some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical
problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but
that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that
were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a
place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there
were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing
I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people
had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:

* Keynotes with a rounded room
* Daycare for kids
* Many women giving keynotes

Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:

* Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because
of this
* Uniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should
re-think layout
* Finding room locations in sched can be difficult
* Good talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?
* Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)
* The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something
better

Here are some of the suggestions from the session:

* Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsored
* Speaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers
who get intros/deep dives)
* Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferences
* Collect videos of previous speaking when submitting selections
* Keep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)
* Have a dry run of the talks before the day of
* Match seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessions
* Track chairs - this came up several times by different people
* Capture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)
* Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some
conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared
room/day and YouTube playlist experiences
* Example from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes
was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than
negative feedback after the fact
* Example from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue
accreditation
* Local conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk
said was in the works
* Posted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special diets
* Having room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know
each other
* Live captioning, at least for the keynotes

Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in
the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If
you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com









Yuan Chen <yuan.chen@...>
 

I have similar questions about the review process as Ruben. Are we planning to make any changes? 

The review and selection process is such a key factor for the success of the conference. We had a long discussion online a while ago. A lot of good comments and suggestions. I think someone collected the feedbacks somewhere. The co-chairs and cncf staff should probably review them and make a proposal for changes. Hope we could improve the review and selection next year.

Thanks,

Yuan Chen
Principal Architect, Infrastructure
JD Silicon Valley R&D Center



From: Ruben Orduz
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Improvement Feedback on KubeCon/CloudNativeCon NA 2018
To: Dee Kumar
Cc: alexis richardson, Matt Farina, CNCF TOC, Janet Kuo, bryanliles@..., Liz Rice, Dan Kohn, Chris Aniszczyk


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

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:47 PM Dee Kumar <dkumar@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
Keynotes with a rounded roomDaycare for kidsMany women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of thisUniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layoutFinding room locations in sched can be difficultGood talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsoredSpeaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferencesCollect videos of previous speaking when submitting selectionsKeep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)Have a dry run of the talks before the day ofMatch seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessionsTrack chairs - this came up several times by different peopleCapture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiencesExample from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the factExample from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditationLocal conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the worksPosted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special dietsHaving room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each otherLive captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina



--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535




Sarah Conway <sconway@...>
 



We responded to a number of points - see this blog to understand changes we've made for 2019 - https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/

We're still listening and expect to have additional details early next year.

Sarah Conway, VP of Communications
LF/CNCF

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:36 AM Yuan Chen <yuan.chen@...> wrote:
I have similar questions about the review process as Ruben. Are we planning to make any changes? 

The review and selection process is such a key factor for the success of the conference. We had a long discussion online a while ago. A lot of good comments and suggestions. I think someone collected the feedbacks somewhere. The co-chairs and cncf staff should probably review them and make a proposal for changes. Hope we could improve the review and selection next year.

Thanks,

Yuan Chen
Principal Architect, Infrastructure
JD Silicon Valley R&D Center



From: Ruben Orduz
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] Improvement Feedback on KubeCon/CloudNativeCon NA 2018
To: Dee Kumar
Cc: alexis richardson, Matt Farina, CNCF TOC, Janet Kuo, bryanliles@..., Liz Rice, Dan Kohn, Chris Aniszczyk


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

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 6:47 PM Dee Kumar <dkumar@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis, 

Please note that the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon co-chairs have staggered one-year appointments to improve continuity. As described in https://www.cncf.io/blog/2018/11/16/kubecon-barcelona-2019-call-for-proposals-cfp-is-open/ Bryan Liles is taking over for Liz RIce as co-chair and Janet Kuo continues. On the track chair idea (+1), we are discussing it and will provide some updates early in the new year. 

Regards,
Dee

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:23 PM alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
+1 for track chairs!  

I'd like to see CNCF appoint a permanent Kubecon liaison who can help the conference chairs achieve continuity.  

WDY(A)T?



On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:
At KubeCon/CloudNativeCon there was a session on improving the conference for the future. This session was born out of conversations on this list so I wanted to circle back with some of the material from that session to further the conversation and see about getting some of them implemented.

Before I share improvements people suggested, I wanted to touch on a possible technical problem. Both Paris Pittman and I found examples of sessions that people proposed but that appeared to disappear. For example, in Paris case it was sessions she proposed that were neither accepted or rejected along with a session that was double accepted.

Dan and Chris, can someone look into the technical process and make sure there isn't a place where some sessions could be inadvertently dropped or otherwise messed up?

I also want to thank the track chairs. It is an often thankless job. In the session there were call outs to things people liked and I, for one, appreciated hearing those. Nothing I intend to write is meant to be a criticism. Rather, it's to share suggestions many people had looking to continiously improve a changing conference.

Some things people liked:
Keynotes with a rounded roomDaycare for kidsMany women giving keynotes
Some problems that could use more solution suggestions:
Room changes and sched updating after sessions had begun. Some speakers were late because of thisUniformly, sessions at the TCC were under-attended. If we use the venue again we should re-think layoutFinding room locations in sched can be difficultGood talks were from end users. How can we get more of these?Some reviewers were a bit overwhelmed (e.g., someone reviewed ~120 submissions)The SurveyMonkey review application isn't great and reviewers would like something better
Here are some of the suggestions from the session:
Announce sponsored keynotes as sponsoredSpeaker training to help speakers improve their sessions (especially maintainers who get intros/deep dives)Use feedback from previous conferences to inform session selection at future conferencesCollect videos of previous speaking when submitting selectionsKeep things on the same topic in the same room (tracks have a room)Have a dry run of the talks before the day ofMatch seasoned speakers with newer speakers to help work on sessionsTrack chairs - this came up several times by different peopleCapture data on whey sessions were popular (is it speakers, topic, something else?)Tracks with diversity (e.g., one of the tracks had 4 of 6 talks on the same project). Some conferences limit the number of project talks in a single track. Couple this with shared room/day and YouTube playlist experiencesExample from an education conference: a 90 minute talk is 80 minuites. The final 10 minutes was people doing reviews. This captures feedback in the moment from many rather than negative feedback after the factExample from academic medical conferences: you have to turn in feedback to continue accreditationLocal conferences (like DevOps Days, WordCamp, DrupalCamp, etc) which Chris Aniszczyk said was in the worksPosted ingredients lists for the meals for people with special dietsHaving room on badges for things like GitHub handles because that's how many of us know each otherLive captioning, at least for the keynotes
Note, I likely missed some. If I did and you remember something please share to fill in the gaps.

There was no way for me to capture the entirety of the session in an email this short. If you're interested in more detail please watch the video.

How can we move forward on some of these suggestions?

Also, please feel free to forward this on or loop others in as needed.

-- 
Matt Farina



--
Dee Kumar
Vice President, Marketing
Cloud Native Computing Foundation
@deesprinter
408 242 3535





--
Sarah Conway
Vice President of Communications 
The Linux Foundation
(978) 578-5300  Cell
Skype:  sarah.k.conway


Matt Farina
 


Huge +1 for track chairs.

What is the process for making changes like adding track chairs? I know there are impacts on conference logistics (like when tracks are decided upon). Track chairs seem like a popular idea and one that has been used successfully at other conferences. Can someone share what the process would look like to make a change like this?

Note, I am aware that announcements are coming to share coming changes. At the moment I’m curious of the process, and am using track chairs as an example, of how changes are made.


Matt Farina
 

Also, couldn’t agree with Matt more that the sponsored sessions in the keynotes really need to be identified as “sponsored”. I think they really detract from the flow of the keynote.  Perhaps  we should consider eliminating this benefit from Diamond sponsors, especially since the Diamond sponsorship tier has been over subscribed for the last few events.  The keynotes are so important, and we really 

I want to add a little more to the sponsored talk conversations. I spent some time thinking about them.

First, I was not the person who brought up sponsored sessions. I just transcribed it from the meeting. Someone else gets the credit for that one.

A few thoughts...

  • Who are the sponsored sessions useful for? The content in them was not something I found useful. Certainly not on par with something like Julia Evans talk. Who are sponsored talks useful for and how does it help the mission of the CNCF?
  • I don’t watch much live TV because commercials. Many people are switching to Netflix and co where there are no commercials. The sponsored talks felt like commercials. I skipped a bunch of keynotes and watched the videos just so I could skip the commercials in them. I see it’s not a huge trend because the room was full. Just a thought.
  • Do the sponsors who do the sponsor talks get value from them? Might there be a more valuable perk for them in their quest that’s less invasive on the attendees?

This whole area may benefit from some brainstorming, metrics, and design thikning


Geri Jennings
 

I like the track idea, and I would propose a track specifically for developers working for vendors building tools in the cloud-native ecosystem and their particular concerns around developing stable, secure, and reliable products in this environment.

I've been to many conferences as an end-user, and I totally understand why improving that attendee experience is a focal point for many. It will also go a long way toward helping us all understand how people are actually using our tools in practice and obviously will also be hugely beneficial to the end-user community as they discover best practices for deploying apps to the cloud. But there are some unique considerations that come with building tools that integrate with or extend Kubernetes, for example - and I would love to continue to have the ability to network with others facing similar problems and to learn from their experience at this event.

A theme that emerged from this last KubeCon was that Kubernetes needs to become "boring" - which to me was a way of saying that Kubernetes and its related tools need to focus on delivering a stellar experience to end-users. If we do this, the end users will come. But it would still be nice to talk to each other about the pitfalls we face along the way, and how we've overcome them. That's one of my favorite parts of this community.

Geri Jennings
CyberArk


Ruben Orduz <ruben@...>
 

To be clear, in full agreement with need for track chairs. That will help with the review aspect for sure. 

But there's also the proposal side that needs improvement. Without incorporating a few key changes, no matter the efficacy of the reviewers and track chairs if they don't have enough evidence to review on, it will still be a lot about gut feeling, who-you-know, renown and biases involved. These will always exist, we're humans after all, but an aim of the program committee should be to minimize these or at least to be able to reasonably defend why proposal A and not proposal B or C was selected.

Best,
Ruben 


On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:57 AM Geri Jennings <geri.jennings@...> wrote:
I like the track idea, and I would propose a track specifically for developers working for vendors building tools in the cloud-native ecosystem and their particular concerns around developing stable, secure, and reliable products in this environment.

I've been to many conferences as an end-user, and I totally understand why improving that attendee experience is a focal point for many. It will also go a long way toward helping us all understand how people are actually using our tools in practice and obviously will also be hugely beneficial to the end-user community as they discover best practices for deploying apps to the cloud. But there are some unique considerations that come with building tools that integrate with or extend Kubernetes, for example - and I would love to continue to have the ability to network with others facing similar problems and to learn from their experience at this event.

A theme that emerged from this last KubeCon was that Kubernetes needs to become "boring" - which to me was a way of saying that Kubernetes and its related tools need to focus on delivering a stellar experience to end-users. If we do this, the end users will come. But it would still be nice to talk to each other about the pitfalls we face along the way, and how we've overcome them. That's one of my favorite parts of this community.

Geri Jennings
CyberArk


Sarah Conway <sconway@...>
 

Changes such as using track chairs is a decision of the co-chairs, which for Barcelona are Janet Kuo and Bryan Liles. They're reading all the commentary and will comment early in the new year.

Thanks, 
Sarah 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:19 AM Ruben Orduz <ruben@...> wrote:
To be clear, in full agreement with need for track chairs. That will help with the review aspect for sure. 

But there's also the proposal side that needs improvement. Without incorporating a few key changes, no matter the efficacy of the reviewers and track chairs if they don't have enough evidence to review on, it will still be a lot about gut feeling, who-you-know, renown and biases involved. These will always exist, we're humans after all, but an aim of the program committee should be to minimize these or at least to be able to reasonably defend why proposal A and not proposal B or C was selected.

Best,
Ruben 

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:57 AM Geri Jennings <geri.jennings@...> wrote:
I like the track idea, and I would propose a track specifically for developers working for vendors building tools in the cloud-native ecosystem and their particular concerns around developing stable, secure, and reliable products in this environment.

I've been to many conferences as an end-user, and I totally understand why improving that attendee experience is a focal point for many. It will also go a long way toward helping us all understand how people are actually using our tools in practice and obviously will also be hugely beneficial to the end-user community as they discover best practices for deploying apps to the cloud. But there are some unique considerations that come with building tools that integrate with or extend Kubernetes, for example - and I would love to continue to have the ability to network with others facing similar problems and to learn from their experience at this event.

A theme that emerged from this last KubeCon was that Kubernetes needs to become "boring" - which to me was a way of saying that Kubernetes and its related tools need to focus on delivering a stellar experience to end-users. If we do this, the end users will come. But it would still be nice to talk to each other about the pitfalls we face along the way, and how we've overcome them. That's one of my favorite parts of this community.

Geri Jennings
CyberArk



--
Sarah Conway
Vice President of Communications 
The Linux Foundation
(978) 578-5300  Cell
Skype:  sarah.k.conway