CAST 2012 Speaking and Emerging Topics

Remarkable as it may seem, we are quickly drawing to the deadline to submit a proposal for the Emerging Topics track at CAST 2012. 

CAST 2012, to be held July 16-18. CAST 2012 will be held in San Jose, California at the Holiday Inn San Jose – Airport (formerly Wyndham Hotel).  

The Call For Participation is up (here). There are three basic types of presentations:

Interactive Workshops (140 minutes);
Regular Track Sessions (70 minutes - at least 25 minutes for discussion);
Emerging Topics (20 minutes - at least 5 minutes for discussion);

The deadline for Regular Tracks and Workshops is past.  The Emerging Topics deadline is quickly approaching.  We are beginning to review the Emerging Topics submissions that have already been received.  If you intend to be at CAST this July, and are interested in trying your hand at presenting on something you are passionate about, involves testing and THINKING - SUBMIT A PROPOSAL!

Emerging Topics track are great - Short, 20 minute snippets - enough for you to present the core of an idea and answer questions. That's about it.  You can submit through the same process the Regular Track and the Workshop sessions are submitted.   OFFICIALLY - the deadlines  for THOSE submissions is June 18.  We are starting the process of reviewing - and contacting people who submitted.  If you are thinking about it - SUBMIT THIS WEEK!  Better yet, SUBMIT TODAY!

The information you need to know about submitting proposals is on the website at the link above. If you are a Thinking Tester, I encourage you to consider attending CAST. If you are interested in telling people about your ideas, I encourage you to consider submitting a proposal.

All the cool kids will be there.  Why not you?

On Passion, or Be Careful What You Wish For

Recently I was reminded of something that was said several years ago.

The Several Years Ago part: In the middle of a project that was simply not going well, in fact, it was a bit of a train-wreck.  Nah, not a bit.  It was a complete and total train-wreck.  Pick something that would go wrong and it did.  In spades.

Yours truly was QA Lead and was overwhelmed.  A "target rich environment" does not begin to describe what was going on.  Massive effort, huge amounts of overtime to try and control the damage, stop the flooding, stop the bleeding, well, pick a metaphor.

Fact was, the testers were putting in a lot of effort and, frankly not many others were.

So, sitting having an adult beverage, or several, with one of the development managers on the project, he looked at me and said, "Pete, you have a real passion for what you do.  You're better at testing and understand software better than an awful lot of people I've worked with.  You are really passionate about what you do.  That is great.  Be careful though.  If you're too passionate you can burn out."

That struck me as odd, at the time anyway.  How can one be "too passionate"?  Is it possible that one can be too involved? Too close to the work? Too passionate?

After all, we have a lot to do and scads of work and... whoa.  Why is it that some folks are diving in and going full bore and others are, well, sliding by and doing what seems to be the minimum.  Why is it that some people just, well, not as deeply into making the project work as others?

The Reminder part:  So, talking with another tester I know, she was muttering about a project where the developers just did not seem to care, about deadlines, quality of the project, impact on, well, performance reviews, raises, bonuses, and the like.  She looked at me and said "Its like they just don't care!" 

SO,  why is it that some people just, well, are not as deeply into making the project work as others?  I don't know.  Maybe it depends on what is expected, or what the normal approach is for the shop or company or, whatever.  Maybe it depends on the nature of the project leadership.  Are people being managed or controlled, compelled.

While what is often called craftsmanship is something that seems hard to find.these days, in some places (maybe many places, I don't know) I remember hearing many people speak passionately about being, well, passionate - as a tester, as a developer, or as whatever it is that each one of us is.

I got to thinking some more Friday night and generally over the weekend about this.

When looking for places where everyone is passionate about their work, what does that look like?  How do you know when you find it?  I used to think I knew.  I've worked at places where the majority of people were very passionate about what they did.  They wrapped much of their view of their self-worth into their work - so if the project was a success, their efforts were "worth it."

Then, I started wondering what a project that was a success looked like.  I suspect it rather depends on the software development group's target audience.  Are the people who will be using the results of your work all working for the company you are working for?  If so, "market" is a hard concept - unless the results of their work, with the new system, improves so much that the company as a whole performs better because of the many long hours and weekends in the office and ... yeah, you get it.

If the company makes software that will be bought by other companies for use in their business, the combination of sales, licenses, recurring/renewal of contracts around the software and the like will be one measure of how your efforts contributed to a successful project.  Likewise, the customer-companies being able to conduct their business better, more efficiently, is another measure of the success of the project.

And so, what about the other signs?  What about the places where people are not passionate about their work.  What do they look like?

That's easier to find examples...

People use "process" as an excuse to not do something.  "I'd love to do this, but I can't do X until D, F and L are in place.  That is what the process is."  (Whether its true or not does not seem to matter.)

People lock into rituals and stay there.  Arrive 5 minutes after the "start time"; start laptop/desk-top computer; get coffee; drink coffee, eat breakfast; sign on to network; get more coffee; sign on to email (personal)... etc., leave 10 minutes before official "stop time" to "avoid the rush".  Use the, "well, I work a lot of extra hours from home and over the weekend" reasoning.  (Oh, laptop is still in the dock on the desk as they are heading home.)


The appearance of work counts more than actually doing work.  Lots of reports being filed, status reports, progress reports, papers being shuffled up to leads and supervisors and managers and, of course, process management.  This is different than using process as an excuse to not do something.  This is taking the literal process and ignoring the intent.

Heroic Behavior is rewarded  more than steady solid work.  Now, I'm not down on heroes.  I've been in that role, and was recently called a hero as well.  I mean the false-heroes, the ones who dawdle and obfuscate and put things off and delay, and miss interim deadlines and miss delivery deadlines - partly by using the first three behaviors - and then work massive hours the last week of a project to pull things together and deliver something - and let everyone know how hard they worked. to "make this happen."

I bet you can come up with a bunch of other examples.  I stopped there simply because, well, I did.


Now, What to Do?  If you find yourself working at a shop or department or company that you find described above - where it seems you are the only one who cares - what do you do about it?  Ask yourself, "Has it always been this way?"  Maybe something changed recently, or not so recently.  Maybe the change has been gradual.

Sometimes, it takes you being the one to be burned by this behavior to notice it.  Sometimes it has been going on with some people and not others and it is your turn to work with these people and - what a mess.

You can say "Maybe they learned their lesson from this and the next time will be better."

Don't bet on it.  There is likely some other reward system in play that they value more than the rewards workmanship, craftsmanship and passion for doing good quality work can provide.  Ironically, they may get rewarded from their supervisors for being heroes (even though they created the situation that needed heroes) or "preserving the process" or, whatever.

So, back to what to do.

Your choices are limited.


You can try to "change the culture."  This is easier in small companies than in large Borg-like companies that grow by assimilating small companies into the Collective.  I know people who have tried to do this.  Some were successful; those dealing with the Borg Collective were less so.

You can try to "change the environment."  Here I include "process" as well as the nature and flow of the work and communication.  You can ask questions and field inquiries and take part in improvement task forces and, and, and... don't let the project slip.  I know people who have tried this - myself included.  It may work, you may feel more engaged and more aligned with improving the company.  At some point you may look back ans wonder what has been accomplished.

You can stop resisting - Accept it for what it is.  Turn off independent thought and go with the flow.  Collect the paycheck, take the "motivational development" courses and continue to collect the paycheck.

You nuclear option - Leave.  Go somewhere else.  That is what I did with the company in the first part of this post.  I packed it in.  I do not regret it.  My other options seemed so improbable.  I tried them - the engage thing, the culture change thing.  I could not bring myself to stop resisting.

Please, never select to stop resisting.  Never conform that much.  We are testers.  We can not be good testers if we stop questioning.  That is what is required of that option.

A Moment's Thought: AST and Walking Among the Mighty

The morning of June 24, I opened my email and found a message that said, in part:

...you have been nominated for AST's 2011-2012 Board of Directors Election. The Nominations and Elections Committee needs to confirm you are willing to run for the Board Of Directors. Can you confirm or disconfirm your interest in running?

Gobsmacked does not begin to describe my reaction.  Astounded?  Thunderstuck?  Not even close.

I asked a few questions.  Actually, I asked a lot of questions.  They involved expected time commitment, level of involvement and things of that nature.  Mostly I was looking to weigh those expectations against the needs of my family and my day-job, you know, testing.

My problem, as my lady-wife well knows, is this: When I agree to something, I dive in head first and will put in massive amounts of time and energy to fulfill that commitment.  In the past, it has sometimes been to the detriment of other things.  I have learned to limit myself carefully.  It can be a struggle to set aside things that are emotionally and mentally rewarding to deal with things that are more mundane, yet pressing, like painting the house or fixing that drip in the kitchen faucet.  Let's face it, some things are just more fun than others.  Sure, they all leave you with a sense of satisfaction, like, the house looks really nice or the annoying drip is not wasting water and costing money.  Still, they don't have the mental stimulation that sharing time with people equally passionate about things as you are does. 

I had come across the Association for Software Testing some time ago.  How long ago, I don't rightly recall.  It was while reading "Lessons Learned in Software Testing" that I read of the "Context Driven School of Testing."  What I read made sense.  It rang more true to me than the more procedural or dogmatic oriented approaches to testing.  There was a reference to a Yahoo email group in the back of the book, and I signed up, and was accepted.

I remember reading in there of the Association for Software Testing and organizing a conference.  Me, I stayed on the sidelines and dealt with other things, watching and observing the discussions with interest.

Fast forward several years. 

In the fall of 2009, I found myself at a conference in Toronto, going in place of my boss, who could not attend at the last moment.  I landed there.  While I was sitting at breakfast, realizing that the nice friendly lady at the table chatting with the handful of us was Fiona Charles, whose writings I had read for some time, a voice rang out.

"Pete Walen! The last time we talked you had just been fired for doing your job!" With that, Michael Bolton sat down next to Fiona and tore into his breakfast along with the rest of us.  (Talk about instant street-cred with a table full of people you have never met...)  Mind you, we had "talked" by email and discussion forum posts and never in person.

Later at the same conference I met Lynn McKee and Nancy Kelln.  Both left me absolutely amazed at their energy and excitement.  In the midst of a lively discussion around measurement, metrics, goals and the like, huge issues for the company I was working for at the time, Michael and Fiona both said "You should join AST, you'd be very happy with that group." (Actually, that was a paraphrase of what was said, but you get the idea.)

Later that month, after returning home, I bought myself a birthday present of an AST membership.  Shortly after returning home I met (in person) Matt Heusser.  Rarely have I met someone with as much drive, energy and focus as Matt.  He confirmed that joining AST was absolutely the right thing for me.  Since that first meeting, Matt and I have worked to get the local tester group meeting, and helping its members, on a regular basis. 

My first experience at CAST came the next summer.  Another eye-opening experience.  I met Fiona again, was introduced to Griffin Jones and a whole host of other people.  I blogged very excitedly about it at the time.  (See?  Here and here.)

This spring I took the BBST Foundations course.  The coursework was only part of the experience.  Meeting people of differing backgrounds from around the world, even cyberly, was fantastic. I remain in contact with several of the class particpants through Skype and Twitter.  Gotta love technology. 

James and Jon Bach, Karen Johnson and others I met in person and was able to spend time in conversation with helped me better my undersanding of my chosen craft.  Each of them are inspirational in their own way.

I was asked once, quite recently, what I liked about AST and why I kept my membership current, and did I think it was "worth it."  Is it "worth it?"  Absolutely.  Why?

That took a bit more thought. 

I realized that at the core of it, was the community that was the center of the Association.  I found a group of people who may not agree with you (or even each other) on a topic and were willing to discuss ir like, well, adult professionals  Many of the members I have met demonstrate traits that I associate with people who are true masters of their craft.  They will discuss an idea with you in order to learn, and posibly inform their own understanding of the concept.  Of course, there is also the chance of teaching you and sharing their understanding with you.

Another thing I find attracting me to AST is the focus on Context.  It is not merely being Context Aware.  It is keeping Context at the center.  It was the idea of Context Driven Testing that I found appealing originally when reading Lessons Learned.  It is still sppealing to me.  This recognition that context can and must color and drive testing and discussions arouind testing has pushed me to be a better tester, a better colleague and professional, and a better craftsman.

There have been many people who have encouraged me and pushed me forward in my development as a tester.  Those I named stand out for the mark they made and their willingness to talk with me easily, without let or reservation.

That is the third and most important point to me.  Many AST members, from the very famous "someones" to the other faces in the crowd, are willing to put in time and effort to better the community of testers as a whole.

I am deeply honored to have been nominated for the Board of AST.  I realized that if I had the opportunity to pass on the gifts I had received, I would.  Someone like me who is not a jet-setting "famous tester" or author of testing books or a famous consultant, yet is one of the many who want to better themselves and those around them in their trade and craft, has a choice.  We can allow the great ones of our craft to engage in this work alone.  Or, we can say "Should I be elected by the members, I would serve." 

I see it as an opportunity to "do my bit" for the greater good.  Therefor, as I responded to the email, I am interested in running for the Board of Directors. 

I was told I would need to prepare a short statement about my interest in AST.  I'm suspect this is not "short" enough.

Motivation and Passion, or, Don't Harsh My Testing Buzz

So, part of my daily morning ritual is to check email, check logs for runs I may have kicked off overnight, then check the "sanity" file.  That contains links to a few comics on the web.  One is Dilbert (duh, its like computer/engineer/geek/argue-about-best-Star-Trek-series heaven) the other is a web comic called Urban Jungle. 

One of the Urban Jungle comics last week was interesting.  For folks who've done anything for a period of time, the idea of burnout, or "Why am I doing this?" may not be a completely unknown feeling.  Keeping that feeling at bay can sometimes be a challenge.

Now, Lynn McKee has given some really, really good stuff on testers, motivation and passion.  I've attended two session she presented where she has done a fantastic job of moving people, particularly testers, forward to find ways to keep testers, and their leaders, passionate about what they do.

Other folks have made the observation that the problem for many leaders is to avoid de-motivating them.

Generally, I'm in the "You're responsible for finding your own inspiration" camp.  Most of the time I think testers can and should seek out and develop their own sense of purpose and motivation - the drive to become better. 

Now, I know that is not going to happen with every tester.  I've worked with some who learned things thus and see any attempt to change thus as an accusation that doing thus is wrong or bad.  Reminds me sometimes of the quote (I don't recall who said it) that people are more firmly wed to their ideas than to their spouses. 

I also know that some folks will do what they are told to do and figure that the easiest way to get along is to, well, get along and not "make waves."  After all, if you make waves or stick your neck out or do something non-conformist, bad things may happen.

If I were to think seriously about this, I'd suggest folks, managers and bosses and workers alike, think about what they do.  If everything is going great do you need to consider learning something different?  Are there newer skills that you can pick up?  Are there new ideas getting floated around out there?  How about new technologies?

I understand some reluctance on several of those points.  I probably share them.  After all, most folks who have done anything with computers or software for more than a few years have seen ideas bubble up, get embraced as the "next great thing" then fade away into oblivion.  The funny thing is, a few years later a new name will be slapped on the idea or approach and it will be repackaged and rebranded as the "next great thing." 

So what does that mean for you?  Are you so complacent as to rest absolutely assured in what you do that you can wait for the bosses to tell you the next thing to learn?  Are you so certain that what you are doing now will be the way you are doing things in five years?  Really?  Will there be no new ideas that can enter your thinking?  Will there be no new insights to drive your curiosity? 

If you are a testing boss, do you mandate every minute of what your people do?  How about your resources?  Are your people resources, like reams of paper or ink and toner cartridges?  Are your people assets to be developed and nurtured? 

If I was the Universal Lord of Testing, with the authority to mandate one thing to all testing groups and bosses everywhere, it would be this:  Allow some time each week for your people to see if there is something of interest to them that they want to learn more about.  Then, let them learn about that. 

Foster the sense of curiosity and excitement that you felt when you were learning about computers and software and programming and all the way-cool technology stuff.  Even if the first machine you worked on is now sitting in a museum, I suspect you had that feeling once upon a time. 

If you are not a boss and are a tester, I'd mandate this:  Make the time to look for something of interest to you that you want to learn more about.  Even if the boss does not "permit" it, the boss is ignoring the order from the Universal Lord of Testing (me) and therefore that "don't do it" order you get from them is improper and MUST be ignored.  Even if you spend a few minutes at home, you know, your "own" time, surfing the web, looking up on-line testing discussion groups or looking for a local testing group, you may find more rewarding things than you know currently exist. 

As my lady-wife is fond of saying, "In 10 years, you'll be 10 years older whether you do anything to make yourself better or not.  You may as well make yourself better during that time."    She's really smart that way.

So, you take charge of your own career.  Join an association - even if you need to pony up the membership fees yourself.  Buy some books, even if the company won't reimburse your expenses, the read them.  Find someone to share ideas with - or just ask questions of them.  Find something that is of interest to you and learn about it. 

The tricky thing is that it doesn't matter if you're a tester or a boss or, something else.  You can learn and improve and discover things to make yourself better.  If you're a boss, lead by example.  If you're not a boss, check what the boss is doing.  If the boss is always looking for new stuff, new ideas and new thoughts, tune in and see what is happening.  Maybe you'll learn something. 

If the boss isn't doing that, meh, they're a boss not a technician.  You're a tester.  Make yourself better.  Its your career.