CFP Guidelines & Best Practices – CNCF-hosted Co-located Events

Important Dates to Remember

• CFP Closes: Sunday, February 5 at 11:59 PM PST
• Speaker Notifications: Tuesday, 7 March
• Schedule Announcement: Thursday, 9 March
• Event Dates: Tuesday, 18 April

Scoring Guidelines

Grade each session on a 5 to 1 grading scale:

• 5 (strong accept) – only 2 or 3 → 5’s
• 4 (accept)
• 3 (average)
• 2 (reject)
• 1 (strong reject)

Review Process Best Practices

1. Process Integrity: It is very important to protect the integrity of the review process, and avoid the impression of a biased review. Please review and adhere to our Code of Conduct.
2. Public & Author Interaction: To ensure an unbiased review process, program committee members should not discuss submissions with authors and/or the overall public (i.e., please no tweeting) while sessions are being reviewed, particularly before acceptance/rejection notices have been sent.
3. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are asked to wear their “Cloud Native Wasm Day” hats first when scoring submissions, and rate all submissions fairly. If a submission was written by a colleague, or someone that you are seen to be associated with or in competition with, please do your best to be as unbiased as possible.
4. Review Metrics: As listed above, the ranking system is divided into 5 options: 5 (Strong Accept), 4 (Accept), 3 (Average), 2 (Reject), 1 (Strong Reject). It is important that you highlight your level of confidence in your recommendation and the reasons why you gave the score you did. When reviewing proposals, keep in mind the following criteria:
   • Relevance
   • Originality
   • Soundness
   • Quality of Presentation
   • Importance
5. PC should bear in mind the following guidance:
   • Ensure that the content presented does not contain pitches, inappropriate content and will be useful to the audience.
   • Ensure that the speakers are coming from diverse backgrounds in all possible terms:
     • Gender
     • Geography
     • Companies
     • Race
     • Etc.
   • Encourage single presenter talks and ensure that panel submissions have no more than 4 panelists and a moderator. Prioritize the quality over quantity.
   • Accommodate as many speakers as possible without reducing the value of the event to the audience
   • Encourage interactive content – short talks with long Q&A, demos, live coding sessions
   • Presentations may be accepted on a conditional basis. If a presentation seems interesting but would benefit from a change of format or improvement to the content, the PC can decide to appoint one of its members to work with the submitter to improve the content and then fully accept it.
6. Review Comments: Keep in mind that submitting authors may be a VP at a large company or a university student. Ensure your feedback is constructive, in particular for rejected proposals as we do receive requests for feedback and it is always helpful to pass along helpful comments for future proposals. Good examples of review elements include:
   • Highlighting the positive aspects of a proposal.
   • Providing constructive feedback, “It would have been helpful if…” and include facts when applicable.
   • Refrain from any personal comments.
7. Panel Discussions: The ideal panel is composed of diverse thought leaders who talk 80% of the time with 20% audience interaction. Some things to keep in mind when reviewing a panel submission:
   • Is the panel diverse, is there a mix of gender on the panel? Note: All panels are required to have at least one speaker that identifies as other than a man.
   • Is the submission cohesive and does it provide a clear view of how the panel would progress for 50 minutes?
   • Have they included any sample questions?
   • Does the panel include panelists from different organizations, including the moderator?
   • Research the panelists if needed. Is their experience relevant to the topic?
   • Will the panelists provide diverse perspectives or will they repeat the same thing four times?
   • Are there any high-profile panelists?
   • In the instance that 1-2 of the panelists are unable to attend, how would it impact the panel?
8. Breakout Sessions: A presentation is delivered by a topic expert with a fresh or unique point of view. Some things to keep in mind when reviewing presentation proposals:
   • Is the submission well written?
   • Is the topic relevant, original and are they considered to be subject matter experts?
   • Are they talking about a specific product from their company?
   • Who is their target audience? Does the abstract and description match up with the expertise required?
9. Confidentiality: As a member of the program committee, you have access to details about proposed or accepted speakers and the contents of their talks. You must adhere to The Linux Foundation’s guidelines regarding use of this information. You may only use this information for purposes of choosing talks for this event, and you must not use it for any other purpose, including without limitation any of the following:
   • using the information for your or your employer’s own business purposes
   • contacting speakers for any purpose other than evaluating their submission for this event
   • asking a submitter to speak at another event or recruiting them for another role
   • sharing the information with anyone outside of the program committee, or sharing the acceptance of the talk prior to the schedule and abstract being announced

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in removal from the program committee, as well as from future activities relating to this and other Linux Foundation events.

If you require any assistance reviewing proposals or have questions about the review process or any of the best practices we have suggested, please contact Lindsay Gendreau (lmays@linuxfoundation.org) for assistance.