Did we give up the Contributor Summit too easily?

[Josh Berkus]

Community,

The Kubernetes Contributor Summit predates the existence of Kubecon.
For 10 years, it was the annual event -- later semi-annual -- which
offered us an opportunity for our contributor community to get together
for some intensive collaboration and planning.

This year, that ended, without any community-wide discussion. So I'm
starting a discussion now.

The Maintainer Summit is an awesome event, but it's not the Contributor
Summit, and it doesn't offer us a chance to get together as the
Kubernetes community. At a time when our project is suffering from
overall attrition, that feels very unhelpful to me. We also lost a
chance to get together and just have fun at the contributor social.

Of course, there's plenty of counter-arguments to this. The opportunity
never existed for a lot of our contributors who can't afford expensive
Kubecon travel. We were struggling with staffing the Summit, and its
role as a place to make community-wide decisions has faded over the last
few years.

We've always decided things in the open as a community, though, and
ending Summit should not be an exception. So please share your
thoughts: was it time for Contributor Summit to end, or should we fight
to get it back? Or something else?

--
-- Josh Berkus
Kubernetes Community Architect
OSPO, OCTO

[Ricardo Katz]

Hi Josh, thanks for raising this. I wasn’t at the “summit” this year, but let me bring my perspective and personal story. 

On Kubecon Barcelona (2019), I wasn’t even close to be a contributor. A friend of mine who was already contributing told me “you should attend the New Contributor Workshop” to get together with others that want to learn, and learn to those who do. This was my first experience and changed (for good) my personal and professional life. 

I give a huge shoutout for the efforts of sig-contribex on having an agenda of constant new contributor virtual workshops, but we know that no virtual workshop beats the real life experience. And an event with >11k attendees is probably the best place to get it. 

After becoming a contributor, summit became a must for me, as an opportunity to be together with other contributors discussing on the same room topics that matter and having fun. Again, better than any 1hr zoom meeting. Also an opportunity to be with friends I don’t see for some long time. 

So answering the main question, at least for me, we should not give up of contributor summit, but we should probably try to make it more accessible. 

 I am one of the persons that mostly vocalized how Kubecon is expensive for non north americans or europeans attendees. All the events I was able to attend, it was based on my company paying or some scholarship program. I understand that the whole contributor experience was just possible for me because someone paid for me, and it sucks. 

Honestly, I don’t know how to solve the financial issue.  I know that CNCF is not just Kubernetes, and we cannot get comfortable on always depending on CNCF money, but what else can be done?

I would love to go by my own to a community organized contributor summit on any place, on some affordable date, where hotel and airline prices are not expensive just because there is a Kubecon happening in town. 

Would that be a thing? Would companies that care with Kubernetes development still send their contributors to this kind of event? Would that make it easier to individual contributors to attend without the financial burden of going to Kubecon?

Sorry for the long email, just that this subject brings some old “emotions” to me. 

Best regards,

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dev+uns...@kubernetes.io.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/b49c9d2c-7ce9-4540-b52e-2904c50d1bd1%40redhat.com.

[Shannon Kularathna]

I've never been to a kubecon or to a contributor summit before (primarily cost and visa concerns). I still have swag from two of them because of the community bringing me back goodies 🥺 

I was just chatting with a coworker about the "Maintainer" summit name yesterday and thinking to myself that this alienates a ton of the people who aren't dedicated maintainers. As someone new to OSS, "maintainer" has a super specific meaning to me (meme of the small OSS project holding up the entire internet). 

Personally no, I wish that the contributor summit still existed. I think that it's useful for people who are curious about contributing. I think that it helps to bring that sense of community to a group of people whose membership often changes daily. Yes, maybe it should change so that it's not as expensive as the rest of kubecon. 

I do acknowledge, though, that I'm speaking from a personal perspective. Like Josh mentioned, if things like staffing have been an issue, I don't know what the solutions are. I just wish it wasn't gone. 

Shannon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAG3fPQ6J2%2BQErMiVHWHxjcz-B-k24oi%3D6Jv4x8LpqFA-OyiPFw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kat Cosgrove]

Shannon,

The Contributor Summit was never available to people who were simply interested in contributing. It was only available to those with Kubernetes org membership (so, actively contributing for quite a while and you've convinced two other org members to sponsor you), or sponsorship from a SIG Lead. The only publicly-available events for people simply interested in contributing to Kubernetes is run by SIG ContribEx, or the SIG Meet and Greet at Kubecon. You must be confusing Contributor Summit with something else. 

The rules for attending Maintainer Summit as a Kubernetes contributor remain the same. The rules for attending as a maintainer of or contributor to another project depends on the graduation level. You can see the eligibility requirements from London here. This allows more people to attend and talk to us than the Contributor Summit did.

- Kat Cosgrove

[Kat Cosgrove]

Ricardo,

Any of us is free to organize and run a gathering exclusively for Kubernetes contributors. Having said that, organizing a conference is difficult, complicated, and expensive (as I'm sure you know), and doing so without the financial support of the CNCF would require that you sell sponsorships just like the CNCF does for Maintainer Summit. Every event, large or small, is currently struggling to get sponsors.

I also seriously doubt we would ever get the critical mass of contributors required for it to feel like a Contributor Summit without holding it alongside Kubecon, which many of us are already attending for work. It's unfortunate that tickets to Kubecon are so expensive, but the issue of flights and hotels being pricey is going to exist in any major city you could reasonably convince people from around the world to travel to, and my employer is not going to fly me out for a one-day event with other contributors even though I am a maintainer. Perhaps a better solution here is to allow registration for only the Maintainer Summit, which is a conversation we would need to have with the CNCF.

Josh,

I'm sorry the Maintainer Summit wasn't what you were used to, but for me, it was excellent. I did get to hang out with all of my other Kubernetes contributor friends at the social, plus some friends from other projects. I saw all the same people I usually see at Contributor Summit. What, exactly, was missing for you? Was it that the social wasn't offsite in a bar somewhere, or something else? It's unfortunate that the ExCeL kind of sucks as a venue, but for me that doesn't justify excluding contributors from other projects, in an entire ecosystem that relies on us to exist, from having a place to learn and socialize as well. It feels like not letting people sit at the cool kids table.

Allowing other projects to share our space is the price we paid to have our own day, a problem we had complained about at length for years (since the Contributor Summit has historically conflicted with the Ambassador Social and/or the 0 Day events). The CNCF pays for this, and so they do get to make some calls without community input. I'm more than happy to give up a private party to not need to juggle my calendar so much and gain some friends in other projects. If you want the private party, there's no reason why you couldn't reserve a room at a bar near the venue in Atlanta; I'm happy to make some recommendations for places easily accessible via MARTA either downtown or in midtown. Otherwise, what do you suggest be changed for Atlanta?

- Kat Cosgrove

[Ricardo Katz]

Kat, 

> The Contributor Summit was never available to people who were simply interested in contributing

That's not quite true. Contributor summit had NCW as part of the schedule and any attendee could register to it: https://contsummiteu19.sched.com/

At some point, we have stopped delivering NCW on Contributor Summit, maybe because too many ppl registered and a small number of people attended (problems of “free” events), maybe because Kubecon has grown too much and all co-located events now compete with Contributor Summit NCW, who knows. 

I don't disagree on any other point you made, but still I kind of try to understand how Fosdem and other events can be so successful on getting contributors and people of other projects to share, gather, discuss, have some fun time (some of these for free!) and here we are, discussing if our own contributor summit should have a separate and free ticket for maintainers willing to help the project (some on their spare time). I cannot understand how this math works...

[Shannon Kularathna]

Oh, my bad. I thought that the new contributor workshop thing was a part of Contributor Summit. Thanks for the clarity! 

[Kat Cosgrove]

Ricardo,

That's not the entire Contributor Summit, though -- it's just one session. The issue of co-located events competing with Contributor Summit is why we now have Maintainer Summit instead. It allows us to have our own day. If event competition was the issue with attracting attendees to the new contributor workshop, this solves that problem.

FOSDEM is successful because it has 25 years of clout behind it, has a free venue (that it's long since outgrown, so it has extreme problems with people being able to see the talks they want to see), limited costs otherwise (they don't provide meals, dev rooms are run by people who apply to run dev rooms and not by the broad conference organizers) and has always been targeted at general FOS projects. We occupy a far, far smaller niche than they do. I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to have the same kind of event as FOSDEM.

[Sean McGinnis]

I do think there is incredible value in smaller, more focused events like the Contributor Summit. It goes beyond the sessions. Having the time to hang out in the hallway and the evening social creates connections and brings about conversations that you just can't have (or at least rarely) over Slack.

That said, the Maintainer Summit did have a lot of what I see as the good parts. And it did allow for those conversations to expand to others that wouldn't necessarily have been present at the previous events. There definitely was confusion about the naming though. I heard from several people that didn't realize it was an option for them, just because they didn't think they were a "maintainer". Maybe a slight rebranding may be in order.

The main challenge for a contributor summit event for me is the "how". KubeCon attendance is definitely a major hurdle for many. But if it's not at KubeCon, then it's yet another event to try to get funding for. With North America, EU, India, China, and Japan, there are KubeCon events that are a lot more accessible to more people. But you can't (or at least I can't) go to every one of them. So you end up a bit fractured between regional parts of the community.

In my past open source community experience, we had the big event that was for the users, operators, vendors, and to a slightly lesser degree contributors. Then we had a separate multi-day contributor event where the community could get together and plan and work out future work. It was an incredibly useful event and I always felt it was well worth the time and expense to attend. But even that ended up eventually becoming a virtual only event due to the expenses of travel and things like securing the venue, promoting it, staffing, etc. I know it works for some, but virtual events just don't work well for me.

I would love to see something like that come back, and I do think it would be a useful "contributor summit" replacement. But I'm curious if folks think they would actually be able to get approval to attend something like that. Or would we end up in the same situation where we're constantly struggling to get volunteers to run it and unintentionally excluding those that do not have good corporate funding for their involvement.

Sean

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAPDH9tH1Nf9ON_UhAk_mR-S9j0aKQnEoSKVDJ3H7f6RAAzHpTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chris Short]

Hi all,

I know from personal experience that running the New Contributor Workshop was VERY hard. I still think of KubeCon San Diego and shudder at the level of effort required. Not only was it hard to organize and acquire swag and sponsors, but it was also logistically challenging on the ground. The conference wifi was completely overloaded before the day started. Additionally, I'll never forget the A/V team quitting on us because what we and CNCF requested to conduct the workshop wasn't possible in the room we were in. I legit had to get things working on my own so Guin and I could kick off the intro to the workshop. I still have the very basic diagram that I scratched out as I was thinking about workarounds to get two projectors working with the kit in my laptop bag. It was a legit nightmare from an organizer's perspective. Then I learned that all the people we were training to be contributors for years were not converting to more people working on the project once they got home. The look I had on my face when Bob told me that some time after San Diego must've been incredulous. It was an enormous amount of work with little benefit to the community. Don't get me wrong, I was happy to do it, but looking back on it, I must've been miserable by the time the day was over.

The Contributor Summit in Chicago was something I saw tremendous value in attending. I got to talk face-to-face with folks I worked with at the big cloud providers, in the community, and meet new people and contributors. The networking value alone was worth it to me. However, others may disagree with me on that, which is entirely reasonable given the level of effort it required. We had a hard time getting volunteers who would be on site for that one, if I recall correctly. It was great to see Kubernetes folks in the often-neglected US Midwest again as well. But was it worth the effort? I don't know. I have doubts there.

Fast forward to this past KubeCon's Maintainer Summit in London. I remember walking into the space and looking across the room and seeing almost no one I recognized. I was happy to see new faces (to me) for the first time at a pre-Day Zero (Day -1) event. These were the individuals the Kubernetes Contributor Summit overlooked. CNCF did a good job getting the right space and handling logistics for all the projects (there were pins for contributors and maintainers alike). Of course, I felt a little out of place, and I can only imagine how someone who had recently joined the Kubernetes Org felt when they walked into the space. But I did the best I could to make the most of it and meet new people. Would I go to the next maintainer's summit? Yes. The TOC presence in London was the most I'd ever seen, and it was great to hear from them. But, a central topic of discussions I had was "how do we do more with less?" I think it was the right move to make the Maintainer's Summit happen before Day 0 events. That'll be tested in Atlanta this fall, though, when it's on a Sunday, I believe.

I agree with Sean that it might need a rename because I saw mostly maintainers and fewer of the people I interact with regularly. I know that stopping the New Contributor Workshop was the right call, based on the data (we now also have monthly New Contributor Orientations). It was also the right move not to overwork the people keeping the Kubernetes Contributor Summit running and hand off large chunks of work to CNCF staff. Did we lose something in the process? Probably. However, it allows us to improve it by collaborating with CNCF staff, so that the Summit can take place at all five KubeCons this year, which I believe will ultimately benefit the community.

That's my two cents on this topic.

[Dan Winship]

My biggest complaint with the Maintainer Summit was the fact that it had
a Keynote. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? The CNCF and all the contributors'
employers spend all this money to get us together so we can meet in
person, and we devoted 1/8 of our scheduled time to something that could
have been an email!

My second biggest complaint was that there weren't very many K8s
sessions, which I assume was because we only had so much space and they
needed to make room for non-K8s sessions. And if that's actually what
happened, then that seems like a lose for us. But then again, I didn't
hear anyone talking about their submissions having been rejected, so
it's possible that the problem was really just that there weren't many
K8s submissions because of the very short window for submitting
proposals after the end of KubeCon SLC...

(Other than that it seemed fine?)

-- Dan

[Josh Berkus]

On 5/28/25 06:10, Shannon Kularathna wrote:
> Oh, my bad. I thought that the new contributor workshop thing was a part
> of Contributor Summit. Thanks for the clarity!

It was, but the last NCW was in 2019. As we ran the NCWs from 2017 to
2019, we got decreasing success with recruiting contributors, so we
moved it online.

The problem is that it's impossible to differentiate between folks who
genuinely want to start contributing, and people who just want to be
invited to an extra event. Instead, today, we focus on the NCO
(online), and the SIG Meet & Greet and speed mentoring (at Kubecon).

[Josh Berkus]

On 5/28/25 08:25, Dan Winship wrote:
> My second biggest complaint was that there weren't very many K8s
> sessions, which I assume was because we only had so much space and they
> needed to make room for non-K8s sessions. And if that's actually what
> happened, then that seems like a lose for us. But then again, I didn't
> hear anyone talking about their submissions having been rejected, so
> it's possible that the problem was really just that there weren't many
> K8s submissions because of the very short window for submitting
> proposals after the end of KubeCon SLC...

Because of the timing, due to it being the first one, a lot of the CfP
took place over the winter holidays. So submissions were very low.
That's not something that anyone is going to do again.

[Marly Salazar]

I think we have to accept we aren't the only CNCF project and we have to foster the others and share space with them. Graduating contrib summit to maintainer summit felt like a good thing to me. Maybe organizing a k8s specific event makes sense, but there's the uncoference where you can suggest whatever sessions you want and they get voted on by the attendees, and frankly you can just like grab people and do whatever you want during it even if you don't want to do it via unconference. Eddie and I did some kubectl work in a corner. I saw plenty of other groups working parallel to the talks themselves.

This thread seems more concerned with getting more k8s contributors though, which is a pretty different topic than having an event for current contributors. If we wanna talk about the SIG meet and greet and other alternatives (I'm loathe to suggest booth duty but SIG-Security did it and maybe that's something to consider) as a way to do more direct community out reach, that seems like a more productive conversation for accomplishing that goal.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAPDH9tHgYs0mxpd5x2sMrXLrLbZq8ix0ye8UQgrrCbdJQ1As-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tim Hockin]

I have, in the past, advocated for a different event, smaller, less polished, which is specifically focused on technical topics, the evolution of the project, direction setting, and decision making.

I don't think it NEEDS to be adjacent to KubeCon. On one hand, people are already traveling so 1-2 more days is easy, but on the other hand people with families can't always be gone for 8-9 days in a row.

Actuating such a thing requires time I do not have to plan and coordinate, and CNCF didn't seem enthusiastic about helping.  I am happy to offer up Google meeting rooms, if someone wants to help make it real.

I don't know what to do to cultivate newcomers into durable maintainers.  Actually, that's a lie.  I think it's Too Damn Hard to be a core maintainer of this project, and it takes a special kind of crazy to sign up for it.

As a community we are not spending enough time on this.  We are all too busy pushing our own rocks to invent wheels and roads.

To the original goal, I reserve my opinion for the moment - I had to show up late to Maintainer Summit, so my experience was not representative.  I certainly enjoy hanging out with everyone, and I don't care if it is at a bar or at the venue or in a hotel lobby.

Love you all!  :)

Tim 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAPrdoBcrpLEa%3D-Y%2BR-iLs_a4AHqNOOZdR7eEYZ7GR%2B0ye7ARnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Benjamin Elder]

FWIW this was raised in many venues previously, including past contributor summits, the chairs and lead calls, and discussions with our (formerly) contributor summit staff.

NCW was phased out previously due to ~0 returning contributors, instead:

1. The content was turned into a static course: https://www.kubernetes.dev/docs/onboarding/
2. Contributor Experience runs New Contributor Orientation Sessions monthly: https://www.kubernetes.dev/docs/orientation/

> That said, the Maintainer Summit did have a lot of what I see as the good parts. And it did allow for those conversations to expand to others that wouldn't necessarily have been present at the previous events. There definitely was confusion about the naming though. I heard from several people that didn't realize it was an option for them, just because they didn't think they were a "maintainer". Maybe a slight rebranding may be in order.

Or communication, naming is hard, we have options to reach our contributors (e.g. an FYI to this list).

> My biggest complaint with the Maintainer Summit was the fact that it had
a Keynote. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? The CNCF and all the contributors'
employers spend all this money to get us together so we can meet in
person, and we devoted 1/8 of our scheduled time to something that could
have been an email!

While we called it a "keynote", it was just opening remarks from some of the folks running the event for us followed by "Welcome to your TOC".

As I recall we had at least this much time reserved in the past for introducing the event and then the steering AMA, instead of the TOC.

This time the steering AMA was in the unconference track, I don't think that was bad.

> My second biggest complaint was that there weren't very many K8s

sessions, which I assume was because we only had so much space and they
needed to make room for non-K8s sessions. And if that's actually what
happened, then that seems like a lose for us. But then again, I didn't
hear anyone talking about their submissions having been rejected, so
it's possible that the problem was really just that there weren't many
K8s submissions because of the very short window for submitting
proposals after the end of KubeCon SLC...

Kubernetes had our own dedicated track.
I know I just didn't have time this time.

> I have, in the past, advocated for a different event, smaller, less polished, which is specifically focused on technical topics, the evolution of the project, direction setting, and decision making.

I firmly believe decision making needs to be asynchronous (IE KEPs, mailinglist, github, ...), synchronous decision making just isn't inclusive (time zones, travel & visas, scheduling conflicts, etc.).
I think the social aspect of discussing technical topics is reasonable, but I think making that happen winds up looking an awful lot like running the Maintainer Summit.

---

I'd like to thank the Maintainer Summit and Contributor Summit teams.
Personally I think the event was good, especially for the first time, it felt like a slightly larger contributor summit.

Also, the event had a feedback form, I hope folks took advantage of this (I did!)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAO_RewYWVXCFk_aVETrOcTEb3DJ_tFB-48TpsSUkstOhhLs8pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Byonggon Chun]

Hi,

I attended the Kubernetes Contributor Summits in North America (2019, 2023, 2024), and this year I joined the Maintainer Summit at Kubecon EU 2025.
In recent years, rather than attending regular Kubecon sessions, I’ve focused on joining Contributor Summits.

Whenever I convinced my managers, I explained that I needed a Kubecon ticket specifically to attend "the Contributor Summit".

For me, the Contributor Summit has been particularly valuable because it allowed me to easily track down and directly interact with contributors and maintainers who were working on features important to my work, like the Topology Manager and DRA. Of course, I could try meeting these ppl during regular Kubecon sessions, but right after their talks, they would always be crowded with people and busy with other schedules. So the Contributor Summit was the best place to quickly locate them, have informal hallway discussions, and catch up on their progress and thoughts.

This year’s Maintainer Summit felt a bit different, as it included various CNCF projects, making it feel like a “mini-Kubecon” instead.
As a result, the strong Kubernetes-focused atmosphere was somewhat diluted.
Still, the primary benefit of connecting directly with contributors & maintainers remained intact.

I also want to share something regarding new contributors:
Many companies encourage contributions, but most new contributors submit a few PRs to fix immediate issues and don’t come back afterward. Among several people I encouraged, only one ended up gaining org membership, and that was for a SIG project rather than the Kubernetes main repo. Even though I used to propose new features by writing KEPs and attending various SIG/WG meetings, now mostly provide feedback rather than open PRs myself, due to limited resources. This problem probably exists in other open-source projects too, though Kubernetes might have a slightly higher barrier.

Lastly, although I haven’t been very actively involved in the Kubernetes project, I’d like to sincerely thank everyone who worked hard to organize both the Contributor Summit and the Maintainer Summit.

Thank you.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAOZRXm_wSR1z0gnJ29Nku%2BYHSV%3DKP57xtpBy602%3DW%3DzQiAah-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mikaël Cluseau]

Thanks to Jonathan Corbet, I do not have to do the research and writing work: https://lwn.net/Articles/299763/

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CACh8f0P%2B%3Dv2ATCSbk0fx%3DztUTh6R%3Db_JRp_QBGMYJxie4mVgww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sandor Szuecs]

Hi!

Contributer summit was always the best part of kubecon in my opinion. It helped meme a lot to connect with people and it’s great to meet people I know since years in chats, issues, PRs.

Best,

Sandor Szücs | 418 I'm a teapot

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/kubernetes.io/d/msgid/dev/CAFJQUxhiVMRk-ZJak%2Bt%2B6eJ%2Bv604BM6FRaVjMVZEq8OvTE8V6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Shu Muto]

Hi all!

CNCF has many projects, and Kubernetes is not used alone, so I think the CNCF Maintainer Summit is a legitimate evolution from the Contributor Summit. Of course, I understand that consensus building should be done by discussions around the world, and that it is not realistic to decide in a F2F meeting. Still, as a developer, I place the utmost importance on the high-resolution communication here, which cannot be obtained remotely. Maybe it's because I feel proud and passionate about participating here.

The biggest problem for me is that the value of contributions is not well understood both internally and in society. In other words, it is extremely difficult to obtain a budget to participate in KubeCon, Maintainer Summit, etc., and to continue contributing.

At KCS in Detroit in 2022, I vividly remember one of the panelists saying in the Steering Committee AMA, "We have to keep talking about the value of contributions every day in the company." I thought that even the panelists in the Steering Committee were in the same situation.

I think I am still able to contribute because I can hear about issues such as how to create an environment for such contributors to continue contributing and how to sustain them at the Maintainer Summit and other events, and because I can gain passion from them.

It is clear that we must continue to produce successors in order to continue and pass on the culture of open source and to ensure the sustainability of OSS projects, and I do not think that an efficient way to do this has yet been developed, but that does not mean I should stop.

So, I have been continuing Kubernetes Upstream Training in Japan since 2019, and currently there are about 370 participants. It is true that only less than 1% of the participants are able to continue as Kubernetes contributors. However, I also know that about 45% of them have contributed to some OSS, about 30% to some CNCF project, and about 20% to a K8s participating project. Although the number is small, it is also encouraging that the participants are writing blogs.

In our Upstream Training, we have been sharing not only specific PR methods, but also the value of contributions, barriers to contributions (internal and global cultural differences), and how to overcome barriers, because we believe that it is important to share specific methods.

OSPO-related events and reports also reveal that many companies still do not have OSPO (although it is spreading), and even if they do, they have not yet progressed beyond the level of being safe as a user.

Spreading the culture takes a lot of time, is tedious, requires patience, and therefore it is difficult to find an efficient method, but it is not something that can be given up on, so we intend to continue in the future.

I feel that LF and CNCF value maintainers. I understand that hosting an event is very difficult and expensive. However, I think it is not right to charge a participation fee for the Maintainer Summit for contributors who basically contribute as a volunteer, even if it is as a job. In the past, OpenStack Summit also had free participation for all active contributors.

There is a scholarship category for event sponsors, but it is separate from the regular platinum and gold sponsors. Because it is a separate category, it seems that applications for the scholarship category are slow to gather. I think it would be better to explicitly include scholarship in the regular platinum and gold sponsorship content. Since this is an OSS event in an era when any software product includes OSS, I think that such a method would be a way to help companies better understand support for OSS.

Best regards, 
Shu Muto

2025年5月30日金曜日 22:33:23 UTC+9 Sandor Szuecs: