Skip to main content

Vote Testers!


The Association for Software Testing board elections are happening shortly. Terms are two years long but staggered so that half of the board is up for re-election every year. I've just finished my first term and I've decided to stand again, for a few reasons.

First, and accuse me of whatever cheesiness you like here, I truly believe in the AST's ethical code and mission:

The Association for Software Testing is dedicated to advancing the understanding of the science and practice of software testing according to Context-Driven principles.

It's important to me that I remain a practitioner of testing, and I roll my expertise and experience into the context when I practice. 

Second, and with another helping from the cheeseboard, the AST is emotionally significant to me. When I started testing it was the organisation that Lessons Learned in Software Testing led me to, and its Black Box Software Testing courses helped to culture and mould my intuitions about testing and how I wanted to test.

Third, and onto the coffee now for the business talk, I feel like I have unfinished work that I want to complete.

Next week there are hustings and the candidates have been asked to provide answers to a handful of questions. I thought I'd publish mine here as I did for a similar set after the 2019 elections.


How do you intend to promote diversity within the AST? How could AST promote diversity, of all kinds, within our own organization and within the wider testing and technology

All AST members, including the board, sign up to a code of ethics  which requires us to respect the diversity of cultures, not to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, age, disability, national origin or other factors, and to consider whether the results of our work will be used in socially responsible ways.

When I answered the same question two years ago I said I would "encourage AST to seek out people who do not already engage with it and find ways to help them to engage. This might be by making AST relevant to them, by moving AST geographically closer to them, by making AST financially accessible to them, or something else."  

I think I have been able to work towards that:

Black Box Software Testing

Please share your vision for the future of the AST's BBST program.

The recent move to partner with Altom for the provision of the Community Track of Black Box Software Testing is wonderful for multiple reasons. It brings back together the two major forks of BBST, it clears up the confusing relationship between them, and it provides shared resources for the teaching and maintenance of the materials. 

On top of that, it preserves everything that's great about BBST: the depth, breadth, and quality of the material; the small cohort approach; and the dedicated and knowledgeable instructors. In the immediate future I'd like to see us continue to doing everything we can to help that to work well.

In the longer term there have been conversations around broadening the education offerings from the AST to include, for example, something on exploratory testing or automation. We recently ran a course in partnership with Rob Sabourin and I think more of those kinds of partnerships could work for us, because the cost of creating, running, and maintaining courses is high and we have limited resources.


What do you think the AST board has historically done well, and what do you think needs to change?

With only a small number of volunteer staff, I think the board has done extraordinarily well to keep the organisation running.

CAST, our conference, is a significant part of what AST is and is known for, and not having CAST in 2020 was a major setback for us. We redirected our CAST energy into more smaller events and we've put something on every month instead, experimenting with different formats like Fika, a super-short and sweet mini-CAST, and even next week's online hustings for the 2021 elections.

A significant challenge for AST has been that it can seem dry, dated, and distant, and the value of being a member can be unclear. In some respects we shoot ourselves in the foot because, while we are a member organisation, our mission is to promote testing in the world and we've tended to err towards making everything we have available to anyone who is interested.

However, despite that difficulty, I support the policy. I want the AST to make a difference to the world generally, to engage with people outside of our organisation, and to grow the testing craft everywhere.

Future of AST

If you are elected to serve on the board, what is your vision for the future of AST and what do you hope to accomplish as part of the board?

At the first AST board meeting I attended I presented a paper called Why Be A Member of the AST? In it, I compared the value we offered, how we communicated our value and where, and I started thinking about what our various activities cost us versus the value they brought to us and our membership. 

Together we then worked on being explicit about what the AST stands for, what we think our members want from us, and what we want from our members. 

Those activities naturally exposed places that we thought we could do better but it also helped us to prioritise activities to improve on them.

For the last two years I've been working through tasks from that list, incrementally improving what we do and how how we do it. To give some examples:

The next major task for me is to make the cost of entry to AST more equitable.

For the AST more generally: I think there is a place in the world for a non-profit testing organisation advocating for high-quality, ethical, context-driven testing. We need to find better ways to help our tribe to find us, better ways to communicate what we stand for, why we think it is relevant and valuable, and why it's worth helping us to achieve it.

Conflicts of Interest

Please describe any current initiatives you participate in that might affect your ability to serve on the AST board, and serve the AST membership.
I don't have any.


In what ways have you supported the mission of AST?

In lots of ways! I've mentioned some of the things I've done while on the board already. Here's a few examples of stuff I've done outside of AST that I think align with our mission:

  • I blog weekly (for the last ten years) from a context-driven perspective.
  • I am the organiser of the Cambridge Exploratory Workshop on Testing.
  • I speak about testing at work, in the local community, and at conferences.
  • I strive to demonstrate good work, done ethically, according to context-driven principles.
  • I invest time in helping others to test.
  • I invest time in helping myself to improve my testing.

Image: Wikipedia


Popular posts from this blog

The Ideal Test Plan

A colleague pinged me the other day, asking about an "ideal test plan" and wondering whether I could suggest something. Not without a bit more information, I said. OK, they said. Who needs the plan, for what purpose? I asked. Their response: it's for internal use, to improve documentation, and provide a standard structure. We work in a medical context and have strict compliance requirements, so I wondered aloud whether the plan is needed for audit, or to show to customers? It's not, they replied, it's just for the team. Smiling now, I stopped asking questions and delivered the good news that I had what they were looking for. Yes? they asked, in anticipation. Naturally I paused for dramatic effect and to enhance the appearance of deep wisdom, before saying: the ideal plan is one that works for you. Which is great and all that, but not heavy on practical advice. --00-- I am currently running a project at the Association for Software Testing and there is a plan for

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

69.3%, OK?

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "What percentage of our test cases are automated?" There's a lot wrapped up in that question, particularly when it's a metric for monitoring the state of testing. It's not the first time I've been asked either. In my

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Fail Here or Fail There

The First Law of Systems-Survival, according to John Gall, is this: A SYSTEM THAT IGNORES FEEDBACK HAS ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF TERMINAL INSTABILITY Laws are all-caps in Systemantics . Not just laws, but also theorems, axioms, and corollaries. There are many of them so here's another (location 2393-2394): JUST CALLING IT “FEEDBACK” DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY FED BACK There was a point when I realised, as the capitalised aphorisms rolled by, that I was sinking into the warm and sweetly-scented comforting foamy bathwater of confirmatory bias. Seen, seen, seen! Tick, tick, tick! I took the opportunity to let myself know that I'd been caught in the act, and that I needed to get out of the tub and start to challenge the content.  Intervening at that moment was congruent: I was in a context where I would accept it and prepared to change because of it. Of course, I enjoyed the deep irony of nodding along with Gall when he talked about

Testing and Words

  The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years .   This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts.  --00-- In The Complete Plain Words , Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that: What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas. It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged. We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons . The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse. But lexic

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a