Re: [rsa-interop-demo] RSA Interop booth space layout feedback for review & comment

["Turajski, Nathan" <nathan.turajski@hpe.com>]

I'd like to provide a counter argument perspective for consideration. I come at this more from the marketing strategy side, less the technical, having managed and participated in RSAC for 18 years, the showcase for 5 or 6 (can't recall), but enough to monitor the impact. 

If the argument is around tough logistics for changing up the format, I get that, and we can stop there. It's difficult to coordinate. No issue there, I get it. But if the concern is around effectiveness, I'll touch on that.

* The booth format has not fundamentally changed from the first year. By continuing to maintain separate silo pods we are literally sending the perception that it's about silo solutions and NOT a unifying message. Every vendor gets to tell a slightly different story which is indeed vendor biased, naturally. At best, an attendee hears 1-2 stories (probably from only the corner aisle pods) and then moves on. In contrast, I'm at a IT trade event (as we speak) where the more powerful messaging comes from having one voice. Floor displays that feature an IT stack tower of converged infrastructure, coordinated and orchestrated, are the trend. It's the ROI and optimization story for modern data centers vs silo approaches. Pods = silos of IT. Convergence = KMIP. 

* A stage is where RSA attendees perceive they can get educated on new technologies and trends. Whereas in prior years, I've literally had attendees tell me that, "oh, I saw this last year." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. If it's not fresh, it's easy for attendees to assume deja vu. They will walk on by to search out new themes. The showcase has to evolve and grow to inspire confidence that it's maturing for adoption. 

* A presentation setup to draw in an audience would absolutely need to be neutral. I know it's possible since SafeNet (Saikat) and I (Thales) were able to do a webinar in past years and that worked out fine. Stick to concepts, stats, architecture, technical overviews, etc. rather than vendor specific nuances, and it's fine to evangelize the TC value and industry leadership. That doesn't happen in an every-man-for-themself silo pod as easily. 

* Lastly, consider the missed vendors who are NOT participating this year because it's gotten mundane or the ROI hasn't panned out. If offering nothing new, the expectations are the same which is nothing new to say. Keeping legacy vendors interested by shaking things up helps. 

So this is one view at least. A rotating 10 minute discussion of 3+ topics for example that could be hosted by interchangeable presenters to cover TC themes can pull in a crowd that can then be triaged within the booth pods to do deep dives. I've seen this work routinely at RSAC.

I'm not saying scrap the pods. But thematically something better needs to draw in and focus the attendees' attention to perceive some new value. Kiosk self-running generic slides would be my minimum suggestion if they were at least chaperoned to help answer questions. 

Cheers, Nathan

HPE Data Security

(Sent via mobile.)

On Dec 1, 2016, at 2:35 AM, Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification Valerie - and a scrolling display on a monitor wouldn't hurt - we have done it before - but I see that entirely different from the presentation areas in each of the current four options - those are "stages" rather than monitors.

As I said in my email - if we took the pillar out of option four and placed it in the center and had a monitor on each slide that would give us a place to run a TC-approved presentation along the lines of what you've suggested. 

Happy to contribute to that being done if enough members are on board for having a central monitor display as per 2010-2014 years and also doing the work to get such a presentation together and approved. There isn't much point in having a central monitor if we cannot produce and agree on something to run on it.

Tim.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Valerie Fenwick <valerie.fenwick@oracle.com> wrote:

After reading Tim's reply, I wanted to note that my approval of the presentation space was based on discussions Jane had with us at the booth last year (as I recall): that the presentation space would be for TC promotion only. That is, in my head, 2-4 decks (some scrolling, some could be interactive)

1) What is KMIP/Why choose KMIP?

2) Recent changes in KMIP 1.3/work for 1.4

3) What is PKCS11, etc

4) recent changes in 2.40/work for 3.00 (and why 3.00 vs 2.50)

(You can see how this could be just 2 decks)

Nothing vendor specific. Any content, whether scrolling or interactive, should be for promoting participation and adoption of the standards.

Thanks!

Valerie 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 30, 2016, at 5:39 PM, Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com> wrote:

For the record, we absolutely appreciate the efforts and dedication of the OASIS staff and in particular Jane in working through the huge amount of things that have to be done to pull together a successful OASIS booth each year.

From our perspective (having now been through six KMIP interop events and three PKCS#11 showcases in a row) having a presentation area does not really make sense for an interop demonstration which is very much focused on concrete demonstration of actual cross-vendor interoperability.

If we did have a presentation area (as distinct from a display running a rolling presentation which we have done previously) then the TCs would have to go through the approval process and vet the material given that this is an OASIS event and not a vendor demonstration - and that process will certainly add to the work of each of the TCs.

The current four options for presentation areas absolutely impacts the booth design - effectively the approach of accommodating a presentation area in each of the current four options has carved out a substantial chunk of the 20x20 booth area and that impacts the space for the pods and the ability for people to flow between them and attendees to gather around a specific pod as part of the demonstration flow.

Our preference is that we have a design that is essentially more like the previous years with some minor tweaks (especially removal of the tall panels on each pod as that worked to isolate each pod and impact the flow) - i.e. none of the current options (as they are proposed). 

There are definitely some nice elements in the design approach in some of the options - but I think we have a standard approach we have been using that just needs a few tweaks - rather than changing the format to be a presentation podium with a set of pods around it. The emphasis (for KMIP) has always been on actual interoperability demonstrations.

Having a central pillar option with displays running a TC approved presentation in a loop with pods placed to maximise access to the traffic corridors would make most sense - effectively a hybrid approach. I think this (from the feedback I've received both on the booth and afterwards) is closest to the consensus view - but everyone does need to express their view to the group rather than just to each other privately - for the decision making process to work.

I'm also mindful of the enthusiasm some of the marketing teams from various organisations have for product/company pitches being able to occur - this is something that we believe does not belong at any OASIS event - the focus is on the work of the technical committees and the work of OASIS as an standards organisation. The enthusiasm is great for a vendor-specific booth - just not for a community oriented booth that is what the OASIS booth has always been.

Thanks,

Tim.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jane Harnad <jharnad@oasis-open.org> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

A member has expressed some concerns regarding the presentation/slideshow kiosk sections within the booth space options. Such concerns include: too complicated and stressful to manage onsite and it takes up too much space.

 

If you agree or have other ideas, please discuss them with the Interop Team using this list.

In addition, I understand many of you have already spoken to our Interop Lead (Tony Cox) about suggested layout options. He will be submitting that feedback to the list as well. 

We need consensus from the group outlining the requested changes by COB (ET) Friday, 2 Dec.

Thanks so much, Jane
 

--

Jane Harnad

Manager, Events

OASIS | Advancing open standards for the information society 
+1.781.425.5073 x214 (Office)
http://www.oasis-open.org