CFP SCORING

GUIDELINES

May 20 – 23, 2019  |  Fira Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain  |  #KubeCon #CloudNativeCon

KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Europe 2019

CFP Scoring Guidelines + Best Practices

 

Thank you in advance for your efforts as a member of the Program Committee for KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Europe, taking place May 20–23, 2019, at the Fira Barcelona in Barcelona, Spain.

These are the official CFP Scoring Guidelines and Best Practices to use when reviewing your set of proposals. Please bookmark this page for easy reference. If you have any questions, please email Nanci Lancaster.

Please click through the tabs on this page to access information.

IMPORTANT DATES

Important Dates to Remember

  • Must have at least 50% of your assigned proposals reviewed: Tuesday, January 29, 2019
  • Must have 100% of your assigned proposals reviewed: Friday, February 8, 2019
  • Schedule Announced: Thursday, March 7, 2019
  • Event Dates: May 20–23, 2019

SCORING GUIDELINES

SCORING GUIDELINES

Grade the quality of each proposal on a 5 to 1 grading scale for content, originality, relevance, and speaker(s):

  • 5 (Excellent)
  • 4 (Above Average)
  • 3 (Average)
  • 2 (Below Average)
  • 1 (Poor)

Reminder: You are required to leave comments for each proposal you review, detailing the reasoning for your score.

For each proposal, you will indicate whether or not you see it ultimately being part of the accepted program by stating “yes” or “no.”

If you come across a proposal that does not seem to fit in the topic you are reviewing, you will indicate which topic you think the proposal fits best in within an optional drop-down menu. Please still grade this proposal as you would any others within your review set.

REVIEW PROCESS BEST PRACTICES

REVIEW PROCESS BEST PRACTICES

  • Time Commitment: Please plan on committing 2-20 hours total to review all of the submissions in your track, depending on the amount you have been assigned. Aim to do 10-15 sessions at a time – then take a break / walk away. This helps prevent burnout and allows you to see more proposals with fresh eyes.
  • Process Integrity: It is very important to protect the integrity of the review process, and to avoid undue bias, by keeping the submissions and your comments on them confidential. Please review and adhere to our Code of Conduct.
  • 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). Of course, please feel free to tweet about accepted sessions that you are excited to attend once the schedule has been published.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are asked to wear their “KubeCon + CloudNativeCon” hats rather than the company or other affiliation when scoring submissions so that you rate all submissions fairly. If a submission was written by a colleague you work closely with or someone that you are seen to be associated with or in competition with, please skip by marking as a conflict of interest.
  • Review Metrics: As listed above, the ranking system is divided into 5 options: 5 (Excellent), 4 (Above Average), 3 (Average), 2 (Below Average), 1 (Poor). 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 – Does the content provide takeaways that are new and exciting vs information that was “so last year?” Is the content relevant to the conference?
    • Originality – Is this a presentation that is original and not one that a speaker repeats at every conference? Is the way the content is presented original?
    • Soundness – Does the content make sense in delivery or is it all over the place? Does the speaker seem to lack focus?
    • Quality of Presentation – Is the proposal engaging and well thought out? Does the background material suggest the speaker will deliver this presentation effectively?
    • Importance – How important is the content for the KubeCon + CloudNativeCon audience?
    • Experience – Is this speaker a good person to deliver this presentation? Does their experience with the subject matter align with the proposed content?
  • Speakers with multiple submissions: We are unlikely to accept more than one talk from the same speaker. If you are in the position of reviewing more than one strong proposal from the same speaker, you can help the program co-chairs by only giving one of them a response of “yes” when answering the question, “do you see this session being part of the accepted programming for this conference.” Please use your comments to indicate why you prefer one talk over another.
  • Review Comments: Keep in mind that the 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 we may pass on some comments (though we would not associate them with you). 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.
    • Avoid direct attacks “Their YouTube video gives me concerns about their speaking style” rather than “this person is a terrible speaker.”
  • Panel Discussions: The ideal panel is comprised 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 for all KubeCon + CloudNativeCon Events: All panels are required to have at least one speaker that identifies as a woman.
    • Is the submission cohesive and does it provide a clear view of how the panel would progress for 35 minutes? Could they cover everything within the proposal in the given 35 minutes?
    • Have they included any sample questions?
    • Does the panel include panelists from different organizations, including the moderator?
    • Research the panelists and moderator, 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?
  • 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? If so, is it engaging in a way that is not advertorial? Keep in mind that sessions that come across as a pitch or infomercial for their company are most often rated very poorly among the audience.
    • Who is their target audience? Does the abstract and description match up with the expertise required?
  • Birds of a Feather Session (BoFs): A Birds of a Feather session is a discussion forum where there is someone facilitating only 20% of the time with 80% audience interaction. Some things to keep in mind when reviewing BoFs:
    • Is the submission well written?
    • Are they talking about a specific product from their company? If so, is it engaging in a way that is not advertorial? Keep in mind that sessions that come across as a pitch or infomercial for their company are most often rated very poorly among the audience.
    • Who is their target audience? Does the abstract and description match up with the expertise required?
    • Topics where people share experiences make great BoFs. In these sessions, there are no experts but the interaction tends to be high.

CONTACT US

CONTACT US

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 Nanci Lancaster for assistance.


SPONSORS 

DIAMOND

Cisco
IBM Cloud
Microsoft Azure
Oracle – KubeCon
Red Hat
VMware

PLATINUM

Amazon Web Services
Ballerina
CloudBees
Digital Ocean
Google Cloud
Mirantis
Pivotal
Rancher
Sysdig – KubeCon – Sysdig.com
Ubuntu

GOLD

Aqua
Datadog
Docker
HPE – KubeCon – hpedev.io
Instana
Intel
JFrog
LightStep
NetApp – no tagline
Platform 9
SAP – KubeCon – Developers
SuperGiant
Twistlock
Yahoo Japan

SILVER

Aiven
anynines
Aspen Mesh
Balena
Bitnami
Buoyant
Cilium by Covalent
Circle CI
Cloud66
Component Soft
Containous
CouchBase
Eclipse Che
Eclipse Foundation
Elastic
Flank
GitLab
Grape Up
Haproxy
Harness
Hashicorp
Iguazio
Influx Data
JetBrains
Juniper Networks
Kong
Linbit – with tagline
Linode
Logz
Mellanox Technologies
NGINX
OpenSDS
Portworx – Stacked
Prodyna
Puppet
Pure Storage
SignalFX
Snyk
Spotinst
StorageOS
Sumologic
Synopsys
Tufin
Turbonomic
VSHN
Weaveworks

START-UP

Alcide
Appvia
Arrikto
Asyncy
Banzai Cloud
Cockroach DB
Codefresh
Cognitive Cloud Solutions
ContainerShip
ControlPlane
Datawire – stacked
Diamanti
fd.io
Garden
Giant Swarm
Grafana Labs – stacked
Humio
iNNOVO CLOUD
Jetstack
Kasten
Kinvolk
Kontena
KubeMQ
Kublr
LF Networking
Loodse GmbH
Mattermost
NeuVector
Octarine
OpenEBS – stacked
Origoss
PlanetScale
Praqma
Proteon
Pulumi
replex GmbH
Rookout
Section.io
SoftIron
Solo.io
Styra
SysEleven
Teuto.net
Upbound
Wallarm
Wanclouds

END USER

adidas
Cookpad

PARTNERS

Linux Academy
Linux Magazin
SD Times
Software Engineering Daily
The New Stack
VM Blog

CONTACT US

Before contacting us, please review all event pages as answers to many questions are readily available throughout this site. If you cannot find the answer to your question and would prefer to email us, please contact events@cncf.io.

Stay Connected With Our Newsletter

Sign up to be kept up-to-date on the latest developments around KubeCon + CloudNativeCon, like keynote announcements, important schedule and event notifications, exclusive offsite activities, and more.