Ruby Manor: what happens next?

[James Adam]

Attention conservation summary: Email/reply with your thoughts about
Ruby Manor's purpose, and influence its future.

Hey Folks,

When we decided to start Ruby Manor, as well as putting on a fun and
interesting conference about Ruby, we had some more philosophical
goals. You might remember them from the original announcement:

1) it should be affordable — we didn't understand why conference
ticket prices were several hundred pounds, and there seemed to be a
lot of fat that could be trimmed (catering, wifi, swag).
2) it should be transparent — you should know where your money is
going, but more importantly you should be able to see AND influence
how the content of the day is put together. The more-typical CFP
throw-a-talk-idea-over-the-wall-and-see-if-it-gets-accepted process
leads to panicking speakers and a lucky-dip for attendees
3) it should be relevant — we were tired of war story presentations
that leave you wondering why you bothered getting out of bed so early,
and presentations where the speaker didn't address the points that
were most interesting for the attendees.

We think we've done really well with the affordability. Without any
sponsorship, we've shown that you can run a good conference and charge
less than a round of drinks for it. We're really proud of that.

However, we're not sure how successful we have been with our
transparency and relevancy goals. We hoped that a mailing list would
encourage discussion and debate of topics to cover, and help the
speakers develop and refine their ideas for presentations, but
activity on the list was quite low.

We're not sure if people find this a valuable process, or if they are
happy enough (or would even prefer) to entrust the content development
to others.

So here's the question - what do you think? Is Ruby Manor a great,
affordable little local conference with a few quirky mechanisms, or is
it an opportunity to explore what conferences should and could be?

Where does its value lie for you? Would you care if it was run in a
simpler, more traditional way?

We still feel strongly about our goals, but Ruby Manor has always been
about the community participation and more than just what we want from
it. There is no wrong or right answer; we really want to know what
you, individually, think. Your thoughts and ideas will directly
influence what we personally will do with Ruby Manor.

You can either reply here (hopefully everyone can be mindful to keep
the thread relevant and spawn any tangents or off-topic asides as new
threads), or to us directly if that is easier.

Thanks!

James (ja...@lazyatom.com)
Murray (m...@h-lame.com)

[Aleksandar Simic]

Hello guys,

I've only attended the one last year.

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, James Adam <ja...@lazyatom.com> wrote:

> So here's the question - what do you think? Is Ruby Manor a great,

Yes it is, I found it useful, talks were done well.

For me the highlight was the gem-this presentation.

> affordable little local conference with a few quirky mechanisms, or is

Speaking as an attendee, I didn't see any quirks. The conf just rolled smoothly.

> it an opportunity to explore what conferences should and could be?

For me it was on par with other conferences in relevance and due to
its size it feels more personal, people aren't on their laptops
reading their mail, everybody is paying attention.

Thanks,
Aleksandar

[glenn]

> However, we're not sure how successful we have been with our
> transparency and relevancy goals. We hoped that a mailing list would
> encourage discussion and debate of topics to cover, and help the
> speakers develop and refine their ideas for presentations, but
> activity on the list was quite low.

I didn't know about the list until long after I'd signed up, probably
only a few days before the actual event last year. Not sure if there
is a way to automatically add people to the discussion (usual tick
boxes/disclaimers apply) by default rather than then current opt-out/
I'm ignorant default. Probably not with a Google group.

> We're not sure if people find this a valuable process, or if they are
> happy enough (or would even prefer) to entrust the content development
> to others.

Even though I wasn't part of the process I found it valuable in that
the quality of the talks were among the highest of any conference I've
been to.

> So here's the question - what do you think? Is Ruby Manor a great,
> affordable little local conference with a few quirky mechanisms, or is
> it an opportunity to explore what conferences should and could be?
>
> Where does its value lie for you? Would you care if it was run in a
> simpler, more traditional way?

Sadly the value in most other events of late has been the post-event
networking. I've found the subject matter being spoken about a lot
less interesting as it's either things like the war stories you
mentioned, or vendor pitches, or the same things we've been hearing
for a few years. Ruby Manor on the other hand had a really high
standard of talks but a lot lower networking value, purely because
it's mostly the same people I've either worked with or seen at LRUG.
Great people who I enjoy spending time with, but I can achieve that on
an almost monthly basis as it is without Ruby Manor.

I wonder if it's at all possible to grow it without losing the essence
of what made it so good? An attempt to show a community beyond Greater
London what you guys have proven, that you can run a better conference
at a fraction of the cost. The upside being a more diverse range of
attendees, topics, etc.

I'm less concerned with it costing under a tenner and more with
keeping the quality high, all I want is value for my money regardless
of the cost. If that means you guys make a few bucks in the process in
return for all the hard work, I won't be offended. I rather the cash
goes to you than HMRC anyway.

Glenn

[George Palmer]

> I wonder if it's at all possible to grow it without losing the essence
> of what made it so good? An attempt to show a community beyond Greater
> London what you guys have proven, that you can run a better conference
> at a fraction of the cost. The upside being a more diverse range of
> attendees, topics, etc.

I agree with Glenn that it would be good to make the conference
available to more people. I seem to remember stalling on buying a
ticket last year and by the time I knew I could make it, all the
tickets were gone. Maybe you could gauge interest by having an early
signup form and people who register on it are guaranteed a ticket when
they're released (but aren't committed to one). This will give you a
fairly good idea of how many want to attend and, whilst some people on
that list will inevitably not buy, there will most likely be more who
didn't use the interest form but do want a ticket.

Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better but it would be nice to see
more people from places other than London.

[Tom Stuart]

Hi guys,

On Oct 1, 11:37 am, James Adam <ja...@lazyatom.com> wrote:
> Where does its value lie for you? Would you care if it was run in a
> simpler, more traditional way?

The reality is that I just enjoyed the refreshing experience of a
small, simple, friendly, affordable conference where every talk was
interesting, there wasn't any sponsor bullshit, and everything ran
fairly and on time -- sort of like a longer, higher-stakes LRUG. It
doesn't seem like this combination of things should be very hard to
achieve but, for whatever reason, Ruby Manor's the only one that's
managed to hit them all for me.

I completely agree with your goals but I suspect the number of people
who care enough to participate in the process is a fair bit smaller
than the number of people who'd just like to buy a ticket, show up on
the day and hear some interesting talks. This necessarily places a
burden on the organisers but I don't know how you redistribute that
burden without some draconian system of enforced participation which
would undermine the whole spirit of things.

The way I see it is: you've built a process which allows people to
participate to the degree they want to. If they feel strongly that
their conference-attending time has incalculable value, they have
every opportunity to influence the direction and content of the day so
that their time is well-spent. If they're happy to be hands-off and
bowl up on the day without having so much as read the programme, then
fine, they get what they get.

If anyone didn't participate and subsequently didn't like what
happened on the day, then they should have participated -- or, rather
more usefully, they should participate *this* time so that the same
thing doesn't happen again.

Speaking entirely selfishly, I don't really want you to change
anything.

Cheers,
-Tom

[Thomas R. Koll]

Hi,

I love RubyManor, it has the perfect spirit for the open source community
we work and live in.
Whenever I read about some conference (e.g. SchnitzelConf) where the
organizers prefers fancy location over affordable prices I wish
it would be more like RubyManor.

So, bring it on, I want to book my flight to London early.

ciao, tom

--
Thomas R. "TomK32" Koll
just a geek trying to change the world
http://ananasblau.com || http://photostre.am || http://photolog.at

[Anthony Green]

On 1 Oct 2010, at 14:58, ruby-mano...@googlegroups.com wrote:

> However, we're not sure how successful we have been with our
> transparency and relevancy goals.

Who are you and what have you done with the real James Adam ?
Sorry, I'm struggling to imagine the acid tongued presenter of 'gem that' getting hung up about 'transparency and relevancy'.

The conference is universally considered a success - selling out before the line-up of talks is announced.
People have a good time during and in the bar afterward.
Ruby Manor rocks so why the need for a navel gazing exercise ?

The seats were more comfortable at the second one, important if you're sitting still for something like 8 hours straight.
Not having talks distracted by noise next door would make it marginally better.
Personally I like to see a second room devoted to hands on coding exercises: katas, API walk throughs etc but that's about it.

Tony Green

[Eleanor McHugh]

On 1 Oct 2010, at 11:37, James Adam wrote:
> So here's the question - what do you think? Is Ruby Manor a great,
> affordable little local conference with a few quirky mechanisms, or is
> it an opportunity to explore what conferences should and could be?
>
> Where does its value lie for you? Would you care if it was run in a
> simpler, more traditional way?

One thing I hate about traditional conferences is that the selection process for sessions is completely opaque. This makes proposing a session more stressful than it needs to be, especially if it's something off the beaten track or which you know contrasts with the views of the organisers. Having attendees vote on which sessions should be held opens the field considerably and seeing those discussions in public gives at least some insight into what the audience is really hoping to get from a particular session. It's also got advantages over the unconference approach - fun though that can be - that half the day isn't spent trying to figure out what's going on and who actually knows what they're on about :)

And I'm still astounded that you guys can put on a top notch Ruby conference in one of the most expensive cities on Earth at £10 per head and still have money left over for the after party bar tab. I guess the only thing I'd change about it is maybe adding a second day that was just for practical hands-on stuff, but then the added complexity would probably change the whole cost balance and risk turning it into just another bland mainstream con.

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://feyeleanor.tel
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

[Matthew Rudy Jacobs]

Yeah,

I wanna come too...

do it in January!

I would offer to talk about;

"Scala for Rubyists"

not that I'm an expert, and its not Ruby.

--
http://rubymanor.org
Group home: http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-manor?hl=en
Unsubscribe at ruby-manor+...@googlegroups.com

[Thomas R. Koll]

Am 03.10.2010 um 06:06 schrieb Matthew Rudy Jacobs:

> Yeah,
> I wanna come too...
> do it in January!

and close to the usual LRUG meeting please ^_^

[Sean O'Halpin]

Hi,

Ruby Manor is an almost perfect gathering.

Perhaps you could allow people to buy (and hence reserve) tickets
before you decide on the venue, so you can choose a venue with enough
capacity.

I was very disappointed to miss out on the ticket lottery last year.

Regards,
Sean

[Eleanor McHugh]

On 3 Oct 2010, at 05:06, Matthew Rudy Jacobs wrote:
> Yeah,
> I wanna come too...
> do it in January!
>
> I would offer to talk about;
> "Scala for Rubyists"
> not that I'm an expert, and its not Ruby.

Last year I gave one of the first talks on Go outside of Google at Ruby Manor and it seemed to be pretty well received so I don't think either of those things necessarily matter as long as attendees are interested in your subject and it has a Ruby connection.

[Chris Roos]

To start with, I do think that what you've achieved with Ruby Manor to
date has been great. I've really enjoyed both events.

Having said that, I definitely enjoyed some talks more than others.
Without thinking too much, the talks that I've enjoyed could be
categorised as those that are about:

* something completely outside of my day job (the best example I have
of this from Ruby Manor is Jason's[1] talk on Processing).
* something that I have basic knowledge of that can be expanded by
someone knowledgeable in the subject.
* anything at all if the speaker is passionate/engaging.

The talks I have less interest in are those that cover subjects that I
have some knowledge of (even if that knowledge is just my having heard
of the subject) but that I can readily find information if/when I
should need to.

So, I definitely think you've produced an affordable, transparent
conference. The only gripe I might have, then, is that I didn't find
all the talks entirely relevant. *BUT* This is purely personal and
entirely obvious: it's not going to be possible to have talks that are
of interest to everyone and the transparent talk selection process
should definitely reduce this problem for the attendees as a whole.

I do wonder if there's something that could be offered as an
alternative for those talks that people aren't interested in though.
I like the idea of a general chat/hack area that people can use to
talk about things they're working on/find interesting but do wonder
how practical this would be.

I also think that my views are constrained by the conventional
conferences. Maybe there are crazy other things we could
do/approaches we could take to ensure that everyone gets the most out
of the event.

Chris

[1] It might be useful to know that I now work with Jason but didn't
at the time I saw his processing talk.

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, James Adam <ja...@lazyatom.com> wrote:

> --
> http://rubymanor.org
> Group home: http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-manor?hl=en
> Unsubscribe at ruby-manor+...@googlegroups.com
>

--
http://chrisroos.co.uk

[Murray Steele]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the nice feedback about how you enjoyed the event, and genuine thanks for your material ideas about how to improve the day. We've had many similar thoughts ourselves.

That said, for the moment we are thinking a bit more about *why* and *how* we put together Ruby Manor, rather than what happens on the day itself. Lots of people are happy with events that are run in a more typical way, but it's not enough for us to just to run a good conference. The world doesn't need another good conference, and we're not doing this to be conference organisers.

We care about pushing in a better direction. That is why we do this; things like transparency and relevancy are what we care about. If we run another Ruby Manor, those will continue to be our goals.

We want to be a proof point for other conferences, to show that they don't need all the typical paraphernalia; the swag, the sponsors, the CFPs, the celebrities peddling the same talks. We want attendees to push other conferences out of their comfort zones because they care about getting a better, more genuinely useful experience. We want everyone to know it can be done and be willing to put some effort in to get there. That's what drives us. That's what makes it worth the effort.

We know that not everyone cares about this stuff. We know that some people do just want a traditional conference experience; they buy a ticket, they turn up, they soak up the knowledge and/or atmosphere. That's fine.

We hope, however, that enough of you think this approach is something worth exploring. To take Tom's point, of course we don't want forced participation, but we do hope for participation from a reasonable chunk of the community (speakers, attendees or otherwise interested parties).

So, to those who have or may presented: Was the process useful? Is there some other way you want to engage the community to make sure your talk is represented accurately during the development of the day, and maximises its relevancy?

To those who have or might participate: Is the mailing list the best way for you to engage with the speakers? Do we need some other tool for easing this process?

To everyone: Is the effort something you think is worthwhile? What can we do to make it easier to help this participation happen? 

Cheers!

James (ja...@lazyatom.com)

Murray (m...@h-lame.com)

[Kalvir Sandhu]

Hey all,

I enjoyed the last ruby manor, it was great to get it up and running for cheap.

To make it better I believe it would be awesome to get more involvement from the attendees. Get more talks/ideas proposed, to get more *relevant* feedback and actually get people to help engineer the talks (encourage speakers to share headlines and get feedback whilst it's being created).

I myself am an example of how I didn't get as involved as much as I could on the mailing list, but where I did I tried to give valid feedback on how the talk will be good for me and what I wanted to hear.

I even proposed an idea of getting a talk created about Eventmachine/AMQP and got only people saying that it would be great to hear more about 'the EventMachine side of this' and a bunch of +1, nothing specific on the headlines I wrote. 7 people in fact out of more than 150 people on the mailing list (the talk didn't happen as I didn't follow up and was crap at engaging with schedule organising).

For me I found the mailing list difficult, people have an empty email body, they are not asked specifically for feedback, "what would you like to hear from this talk" type questions, perhaps this is why people reply openly and without context. In parts this email thread is an example of that, it steered away from the feedback it really wanted to obtain.

Continuing the line of thinking that the mailing list is an issue I have an idea of how this could be improved (with a bit of effort) and add an element of enforced participation (Tom mentioned above). I will propose it in another thread later and encourage people to provide feedback.

Mentions above from people about making it bigger doesn't appeal to me, as I would rather have less people that are fully involved than lots that just turn off email updates from the list and just turn up on the day.

Kalv.

[Richard Livsey]

I'll echo all the previous comments and say that I've enjoyed both
manors and am looking forward to the next!

As Kalv mentions, the mailing list might not be the best way of
fostering discussion and feedback of the different talk proposals.

Maybe a simple web app where people can submit talk ideas, add
feedback and vote on the proposals.
Then once the event has taken place, the same app could be used for
attaching the slides and feedback from the talk itself.

Taking the idea of enforced participation, maybe you shouldn't be
allowed to buy a ticket without participating on the site by
submitting an idea or providing feedback on at least one talk. Or the
ticket purchase funnel could require ranking a number of talks before
leading you to the checkout.

Cheers.

--
Richard Livsey
MinuteBase - Online Meeting Minutes
http://minutebase.com
http://livsey.org

[Matt Westcott]

On Oct 6, 2:55 pm, Richard Livsey <rich...@livsey.org> wrote:
> Taking the idea of enforced participation, maybe you shouldn't be
> allowed to buy a ticket without participating on the site by
> submitting an idea or providing feedback on at least one talk. Or the
> ticket purchase funnel could require ranking a number of talks before
> leading you to the checkout.

Why do you feel this is necessary? Who's it supposed to benefit?

I don't dispute the value of having an open process that anyone can
contribute to, but there are any number of good reasons for someone to
choose not to take part in that - maybe they're an enthusiastic
newcomer to Ruby who's entirely open to learning more, but has no idea
where the interesting topics are? Or maybe they're just satisfied that
the people taking part in the process are doing a darned good job
already? I did contribute to the discussion last year, but if this
time round it happens that I have nothing to add, then a rule like
this is more likely to turn me off entirely than draw me into the
conversation.

Far from encouraging people to be more involved, I think enforced
participation is the surest way to turn the event into a clique for
hardcore opinion-makers.

- Matt

[Richard Livsey]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Matt Westcott <mat...@west.co.tt> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:55 pm, Richard Livsey <rich...@livsey.org> wrote:
>> Taking the idea of enforced participation, maybe you shouldn't be
>> allowed to buy a ticket without participating on the site
>

> Why do you feel this is necessary? Who's it supposed to benefit?
>

> Far from encouraging people to be more involved, I think enforced
> participation is the surest way to turn the event into a clique for
> hardcore opinion-makers.

I didn't say it was a *good* idea, just throwing random thoughts out
there to elicit discussion :o)

Personally, I think instead of improving discussion it would have the
opposite effect.
Putting barriers like that in the way would mean people would either
fill in nonsense just to get to the next page, or turn them off
completely as you say.

The other parts, moving talk suggestions etc to a web-app could be
interesting, if only as it would be more structured and also useful
after the event itself. See Kalv's other thread for some more
well-formed ideas down that path.

[Roland Swingler]

I'll second all the comments saying Ruby Manor has been great so far.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like it isn't so much "transparency"
or "relevancy" that are important but this:

"We want attendees to push other conferences out of their comfort zones".

Transparency is just one possible way of achieving that, and if every
talk was I-will-still-remember-it-in-ten-years awesome then it doesn't
particularly matter if it is "relevant".

Personally I've found the talks at previous ruby manors have been
fine, but not so good that I'm still thinking about them. This is
probably because giving a talk that good is really, really hard - you
need to have thought long and hard, possibly for months or years about
the content, and you need to be practiced enough at public speaking to
be able to get your point across effectively.

The problem with the mailing list approach is that while I think it
can be fine to get a rough idea of what people are interested in
hearing about, sometimes a brilliant talk is one you don't think you'd
want to hear, or requires an element of surprise as if you were
performing a magic trick, or telling a joke. Also, unless you have a
really deep knowledge of the subject area then the mailing list
clarification can sometimes almost do away with the need to hear the
talk at all.

One semi-practical idea: suppose that everyone speaking got together
the weekend before the conference and gave their talk a run through in
front of the other speakers. The other speakers would then offer
criticism on the content & delivery - things like:

* you spent too long on this section, I'd got the point after 2 minutes
* I didn't get the link between part foo and part bar
* I need to see more examples of X
* Stop looking at the slides when you talk - look at the audience!
* etc.

This pre-conf workshop is then an opportunity for everyone to get
better at speaking. I know I would personally find this really
valuable - it isn't often that I give a talk more than once, and it is
always annoying knowing with hindsight that certain parts of a talk
could have been so much better.

This is exactly the same as iterative development - it is all very
well having a detailed software architecture / content & slides but it
isn't until you actually start doing the development / speaking to an
audience that you find out where the real problems are.

Apologies if this has sounded a little negative - it's just that I
think it definitely *is* worth the effort to try and make the day as
great as possible.

Cheers,
Roland

[edavey]

On Oct 7, 11:56 pm, Roland Swingler <roland.swing...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One semi-practical idea: suppose that everyone speaking got together
> the weekend before the conference and gave their talk a run through in
> front of the other speakers. The other speakers would then offer
> criticism on the content & delivery - things like:

Dear All,

Ruby Manor is great! Let's do it again.

I like the iterative (even recursive) nature of Roland's suggestions
and it's seems obvious that it would yield better crafted
presentations, assuming of course that the speakers were willing and
able to go to the extra effort of honing their talk in a pre-
conference workshop. Given that there's no money in it!

Here's my suggestion:

a) a web app in which participants register for attendance and
participation in the process of forming the conference,

b) prospective speakers have the ability post an abstract / pitch /
whatever to explain what they want to present,

c) participants could leave comments on any pitch,

d) participants vote up or vote down on any pitch, and

e) the organisers, whom we trust absolutely, reserve the right to
ignore the voting and decide on the programme in our best interests.

This would combine user participation with curatorship and hopefully
provide a more structured platform for the merits of individual talks
to be discussed.

Looking forward to the big day.

Ed

[James Adam]

On 7 October 2010 23:44, Richard Livsey <ric...@livsey.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Matt Westcott <mat...@west.co.tt> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2:55 pm, Richard Livsey <rich...@livsey.org> wrote:
>>> Taking the idea of enforced participation, maybe you shouldn't be
>>> allowed to buy a ticket without participating on the site
>>
>> Why do you feel this is necessary? Who's it supposed to benefit?
>>
>> Far from encouraging people to be more involved, I think enforced
>> participation is the surest way to turn the event into a clique for
>> hardcore opinion-makers.
>
> I didn't say it was a *good* idea, just throwing random thoughts out
> there to elicit discussion :o)
>
> Personally, I think instead of improving discussion it would have the
> opposite effect.
> Putting barriers like that in the way would mean people would either
> fill in nonsense just to get to the next page, or turn them off
> completely as you say.

To answer Matt's point, we agree, forcing participation is not what we
want. It wouldn't get us any further down the line towards our goal.
Ruby Manor, as run by us, won't *require* participation.

That said, there is something in Richard's point too; we want to
encourage participation, so maybe we should reward those that do so.
Participation could be anything from voting (yes/no/no opinion) to
providing thoughtful, constructive suggestions to speakers. We prefer
the latter over the former, but it all counts. Ruby Manor will
*prefer* participation.

For example, active participants could get first pass at tickets as a
thank-you for their hard work in shaping the day. This may still seem
like enforcing participation, but as it seems that, at least for the
moment, the number of people who want to come to a Ruby Manor would be
greater than the number of people who would actively participate. In
that way those who have nothing to add to the conversation won't miss
out any more than they would with the current free-for-all on the day
tickets are released.

- James & Murray

[Ben Griffiths]

Posters? http://us.pycon.org/2010/conference/posters/accepted/

[Roland Swingler]

Don't know if this is from anyone at LRUG or not, but was developed in
rails rumble and seems to at least be a start of what you might want:

http://call4paperz.r10.railsrumble.com/

R

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Ben Griffiths <bengri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Posters? http://us.pycon.org/2010/conference/posters/accepted/

[James Mead]

Although I've never been involved in one, I quite like the idea of a poster session [1] as Ben suggested.

The fact that it'd be less formal than set piece talks might encourage people who don't enjoy speaking in public. I imagine it's also more interactive and maybe people would be happier to present ideas at an earlier stage.

It would also offer a nice break from sitting down all day.

Cheers, James.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_session

On 11 Oct 2010, at 02:09, Ben Griffiths wrote:

> Posters? http://us.pycon.org/2010/conference/posters/accepted/

[edavey]

I think this would be really useful for those with esoteric or fringe
ideas as well as for those seeking collaborators.

Ed

On Oct 22, 9:39 am, James Mead <ja...@floehopper.org> wrote:
> Although I've never been involved in one, I quite like the idea of a poster session [1] as Ben suggested.
>
> The fact that it'd be less formal than set piece talks might encourage people who don't enjoy speaking in public. I imagine it's also more interactive and maybe people would be happier to present ideas at an earlier stage.
>
> It would also offer a nice break from sitting down all day.
>
> Cheers, James.
>
> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poster_session
>
> On 11 Oct 2010, at 02:09, Ben Griffiths wrote:
>
>
>

> > Posters?http://us.pycon.org/2010/conference/posters/accepted/