On reflection, ETCON really was an unusually useful technology conference. It took place at the end of April in the bizarre, antiseptic industrial park that is Silicon Valley, and it has fuelled a resurgence of debate about the if/what/how/who/why of “social software”
Out of the main presentations I attended, the following ones stood out

• Howard Rheingold, Alan Kay and in particular Clay Shirky’s keynotes provided some welcome historical context to the idea of social software
• Eric Bonabeau was fascinating on biological lessons for computing
• the BBC’s Matt Jones/James Cronin overcame techical glitches to deliver what were in my view some of the best practical ideas
• Maciej Ceglowski was great on semantic search
• Jo Walsh (mapping), for requiring the kind of undiverted attention that the conference sometimes lacked, resembling as it did a meeting of wireless laptops users anonymous.
• “The Microsoft guy” for cheerfully overcoming extreme (if sometimes justifed) prejudice and delivering a spirited (and beautifully Mexican) performance that tried to engage the blogging frat.

See here for presentation downloads
I didn’t see it, unfortunately, but Tom Coates’ presentation looks very good too
It is strange to experience a conference that is being annotated and discussed online whilst it is taking place, especially with such blogging speedsters as Jason Kottke and Cory Doctorow in the house. As well as the contemporaneous blogs, there are also some new and useful discussion sites focusing more directly on social software that have popped up around the time of the conference, such as Many to Many and the (self-titled) Social Software Alliance’s discussion list
Following on from the conference, Jack Schofield of the Guardian has asked the inevitable ‘social software: next big thing or hype?’ question, but neither he, nor NTK, nor anyone I noticed except the Register really had anything particularly disdainful to say about the conference overall. Meanwhile, Tom Coates has been inspired to update his attempt at a working definition of social software, which is a useful intervention. Matt Webb, on the other hand has clearly done a little too much emerging: (;-p
“Social software is pre Fung Shui, pre folk anything. It’s hard to slice and dice even, which is a characteristic of things that haven’t been shaped and paradigmised”Partly in response to Tom Coates’ posting, Howard Rheingold reminds us today that none of this is totally new, just more possible, by referring back to earlier work intended to make computer use more social. This strikes a chord with me, as one of the main headshift moments in the conference was seeing Alan Kay show 35-year old film of video conferencing and online collaboration and ask: what have we been doing for the past three decades?I am fascinated by the historical component to this fast-moving debate, and I think Alan Kay’s and Howard Rheingold’s different areas of experience can contribute a great deal to current emerging technologies and (more importanly) their use
Since asking for feedback on a draft paper about social software, I have had some useful feedback and comments from S�bastien Paquet, Jess McMullin on IA/ and other people whose work I admire, and I am trying to find time to revise the text to serve as an intro to some of the areas discussed loosely as social software, the connections between them and potential ways it could change the way we think about and use online software in our work
I hope this thinking, fuelled by the ideas and inspiration of a large number of more advanced writers and practitioners in this area, can help us develop some practical tools and techniques in the here and now that can help our clients and partners and their stakeholders. Cynical as I am, I was nonetheless very impressed by the level of knowledge and social awareness among ETCON participants, and I was particularly encouraged by the number of switched-on UK-based people in attendance. Bodes well, I think.