Conference Budgets

There has been conversation on Twitter recently about conferences who do not offer speaker compensation. If you haven't been part of this discussion I would encourage you to read Why I Don't Pay to Speak by Cassandra Leung, which provides a detailed summary.

I take an interest in these conversations from two perspectives: I regularly speak at international conferences and I co-organise the annual WeTest conferences for the New Zealand testing community.

As an organiser, the events that I help to run cover all speaker travel and accommodation. We make a special effort to care for our conference speakers and have built a reputation in the international testing community as being an event that is worth presenting at.

WeTest is a not-for-profit company that is entirely driven by volunteers. How do we afford to pay all of our speakers?

Humble Beginnings

Our 2014 WeTest conference was a half-day event in a single city.

We had 80 participants who paid $20 per person. They received a conference t-shirt along with a catered dinner of pizza and drinks.

All of our speakers were local to the city, so there were no travel or accommodation expenses. Our budget was balanced by the support of our primary sponsor, Assurity.

Our total budget for this event was approximately $3,000 where our income and expenses were:

WeTest Budget 2014

Stepping Up

By 2016 we felt that we had built an audience for a more ambitious event. We embarked on a full-day conference tour with the same program running in two cities within New Zealand.

We had 150 participants in each city who paid $150 per person. This was a significant jump in scale from our previous events, so we had to establish a formal scaffold for our organisation. WeTest was registered as a company, we created a dedicated bank account, and launched our own website.

This was also the first year that we invited international speakers. 25% of our speaker line-up, or three out of twelve speakers, traveled to New Zealand from overseas. Covering their travel and accommodation costs significantly altered the dynamics of our budget. Running the conference in two different cities meant that there were travel and accommodation costs for our New Zealand based speakers and organisers too.

Our total budget for this event was approximately $50,000 where our income and expenses were:

WeTest Budget 2016

The Big League

Our 2016 events sold out quickly and we had long waiting lists. To accommodate a larger audience, we grew again in 2017. This meant securing commercial venues, signing contracts, paying deposits, registering for a new level of tax liability and formalising our not-for-profit status.

In 2017 we had around 230 participants in each city. We introduced an earlybird ticket at $150 per person, so that our loyal supporters would not experience a price-hike and we could collect some early revenue to cover upfront costs. Our standard ticket was $250 per person.

40% of our speaker line-up, or four out of ten speakers, traveled to New Zealand from overseas. We incurred similar speaker travel and accommodation expenses to the previous year.

Our total budget for this event was approximately $100,000 where our income and expenses were:

WeTest Budget 2017

To re-iterate, WeTest is a not-for-profit organisation that is volunteer-led. The profit of our 2017 events will be reinvested into the testing community and help us to launch further events in the New Year.

In the discussion about speaker reimbursement we often discuss in the abstract. I hope that these examples provide specific evidence of how a conference might approach speaker reimbursement, whether they are a small community event or a larger endeavour.

At WeTest we have consistently balanced our budget without asking speakers to pay their own way. We are proud of the diverse speaker programs that have been supported by this approach. In 2018 we look forward to continuing to provide a free platform for our speakers to deliver great content.

Test Leadership Breakfast

At our usual WeTest MeetUp events we get a wide variety of attendees from all levels of experience in testing, as well as those from other disciplines of software development with an interest in the topic of the day. This creates an environment for a varied conversation and questions, but often the discussion feels as though it dances across the surface of what it might be possible to talk about.

A diverse audience has advantages, but for a long time I've thought that there might be an opportunity for more focused conversation if we restricted the audience of an event. If we could create an audience with a specific similarity - whether that was years of experience, domain of employment, gender, or some other attribute - then people would have the opportunity to dig into topics of interest based on their shared experiences.

In 2013, our second year of WeTest, we tried to launch two initiatives to test our theory. WeTest Warriors was aimed at experienced testers and WeTest Green was aimed at those who were new to the industry. We scheduled an evening event for each group to socialise and share their stories over an informal pub dinner.

Both events were poorly attended and the initiatives were ultimately abandoned.

At the time I was a little perplexed by this. When I spoke with individuals during our normal events they would offer feedback and commentary that seemed to validate the idea of having separate discussions with a targeted audience. I thought that these people would jump at the chance to speak with their peers. They hadn't, but I wasn't sure why.

This year I decided to tackle the same idea in a slightly different way. Selfishly.

As I've moved through the testing profession into a leadership role, I have found that I have fewer and fewer peers within my organisation. Test leadership can become relatively lonely. I could see people out in the community who were tackling similar challenges to me, but I struggled to identify close colleagues who were doing the same.

I spoke to a few people in similar roles, then decided to launch a monthly Test Leadership Breakfast. I wanted to create a forum to bring together a specific collection of people that I was eager to have conversations with. By the event description:

This breakfast is exclusively for people who are currently working in Test Leadership roles to discuss their challenges and share their successes. It will be small, just 10 seats at the table, and will run in a Lean Coffee format.

The response was immediate. The ten seats were claimed for our first breakfast in January within a day of the event being advertised. The same happened in February and March too.

The feedback from events so far has been positive. Through the Lean Coffee format we've covered topics of conversation that have been useful to the people who have gathered. I've personally gained a lot of ideas and insight from the other attendees, and hope to have contributed to their thinking too.

I see this as proof of the value of gathering like-minds. In comparison to the Lean Coffee sessions I have attended with a varied audience, or the discussion at a usual WeTest event, every topic of conversation has had some relevance to my own role. Our discussion has been focused, productive and delved into exploring the details.

The contrast with our previous attempt to bring experienced testers together has been stark. Why did WeTest Warriors fail where the Test Leadership Breakfast has succeeded? On reflection, I see five key areas where our approach changed.

Naming is important. Test Leadership Breakfast clearly identifies the audience and nature of the event with simple, gender-neutral language. WeTest Warriors was alliterative, but in retrospect it was a rather intimidating and unclear name for what we were trying to do.

Evenings are busy. People have evening commitments to their family and friends, sports, hobbies, and other entertainment activities. Perhaps there are less intense demands on people in the early morning? A breakfast event might mean setting an earlier alarm and making alternative arrangements for family transport, but not forgoing another commitment.

Time is precious. For the evening events we had a relaxed approach to time. There was a start time listed, but no end time. Our assumption was that people would stay for however long they wished. By contrast, our breakfast events run for exactly an hour from 8am to 9am. People know the commitment that they are making.

Scarcity creates demand. WeTest Warriors was an open invite to a pub environment that could accommodate flexible attendance. By contrast, the breakfast event requires a booking at a local cafe who consider ten people to be a large group. It seems that the limited number of spaces drives a quicker response as people don't want to miss out.

Structure is reassuring. The Lean Coffee format offers a framework for productive conversation with strangers in a relatively informal setting. It helps focus the topics and manage individual contributions. I can see how this might be less intimidating than navigating totally informal conversations in a pub environment.

Beyond these details, the community evolved within those four years. Many WeTest attendees received promotions, which changed the group of people who made up the target audience of these events. We have grown and now have over 700 members in Wellington, which is significantly larger than in 2013. This means that a smaller proportion of members need to attend an event to make it successful.

This experience has also been a general reminder that a solution that fails doesn't mean that the premise is invalid. Approaching the same problem in two different ways can yield entirely different outcomes. Sometimes you have to step back, think about an alternative, then try again.

Caring for conference speakers

I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to speak at a number of international conferences. I've traveled to the USA, Canada, India, Estonia, England, Australia, and Denmark, as well as speaking at many events around New Zealand.

My experiences have been generally good. Yet there are many things about speaking at conferences that I feel could be improved. As a co-organiser of the upcoming WeTest conferences, I've spent some time this year reflecting on where the opportunities are to do things better.

The most obvious is paying to speak. I've had to pay my own airfares and accommodation on a few occasions, particularly as a new speaker. Where reimbursement for expenses has been offered it is usually paid after the event, which means that I still need to be financially able to cover these expenses in the short term.

But there are a host of smaller parts that form the overall experience of speaking at an event.

I may not know whether I'm supposed to have my presentation material on my own laptop, on a USB drive, or submitted somewhere in advance. What is the type of connection to the projector? Will there be a microphone? A lecturn? A stage?

I may not know how big my audience is going to be: 10, 100, or more? What type of layout will they be in: tables of 10, rows of chairs, or a staggered amphitheater? What type of people will I be speaking to: testers, test managers, or others who work in software?

I may not know what sort of environment I will face. Is it a conference where presenters simply present, or will there be a Q&A or open season afterwards? Is there a culture of debate, argument or challenge? If so, will I be supported by a facilitator?

All of these unknowns about what I've signed up for can cause anxiety. They also make it difficult for me to picture the audience and tailor my material accordingly.

Then there are the series of small challenges that happen during the experience itself. Arriving from a long haul flight in an unfamiliar country and finding my accommodation. Locating the conference venue and the room in which I'll present. Determining whether I'll be introduced by someone or will introduce myself. Deciding how to manage time keeping. And so on.

So, what are we doing differently for WeTest?

One of the main priorities for our organising committee is to care for our speakers. As many of the WeTest organisers are also regular conference speakers, we've worked hard to remove the worries that may surround accepting a speaking engagement. We know our speakers are putting a lot of work into preparing their presentations. We think that this should be their only concern.

We've arranged and paid for our speaker flights and accommodation in advance. With one exception where a speaker had specific airline requirements, none of our speakers have been asked to foot any of these costs upfront.

We've communicated with our speakers regularly. Since their selection in June we've:

• agreed on benefits and expectations via a written speaker agreement,
• offered them the opportunity to check their session and biographical details on the event website prior to our go-live, 
• provided a mechanism for them to complete their complimentary registration, 
• shared details of the venue, audio visual setup and event timing, 
• prepared personal itineraries for travel, accommodation and any associated sponsorship commitments, and
• sent them a copy of our attendee communication.

Over the past four months I hope that this information has removed a lot of anxiety that can be associated with presenting at an event. As an organising team we've tried to space out these messages, to offer regular opportunities for our speakers to ask questions and eliminate any unknowns.

The speaker itineraries that we've prepared run from arrival in the conference city. We have arranged and paid transport to meet all of our speakers at the airport. For international guests this means they don't have to worry about how to find their hotel or immediately locate New Zealand currency when they land.

And on the conference day itself, we have a dedicated person assigned specifically to our speakers. One of our organising committee will be walking our speakers from their accommodation to the venue, leading the speaker briefing, and be available throughout the event to deal with any questions or problems that arise.

I'm confident that our efforts to look after our speakers will result in fantastic material this year and in years to come. I want to continue to create a safe space for new presenters to step forward from the New Zealand testing community. And I want our WeTest events to be a must for international presenters on the software testing conference circuit.

On a broader note, I hope that our efforts help to change the expectations of speakers for other events. If every organiser aimed to provide a similar level of care, or speakers came to expect this, the experience of speaking at a conference could be consistently better than it is today.

A community discussion

A while back I put out a tweet request:

Challenge: Describe the context-driven testing community in a single tweet. #research @CPHcontext

— Katrina Clokie (@katrina_tester) February 19, 2016

I spoke about the responses to this tweet during my talk titled "A Community Discussion" at Copenhagen Context. Somewhat ironically I've been reluctant to share the feedback that I received in writing. There's been exchanges in the testing community recently that makes me feel now is the time.

I had a lot of responses to my original request on Twitter. About half tried to explain context-driven testing rather than the community. Those who did speak about the people and environment gave responses like:

• A bunch of supportive, challenging and engaged people full of questions, support and understanding.
• Warm and welcoming, literally the best thing that I've come across in my career.
• People who insist on a human perspective on testing
• A community of people who constantly asks the question how can we be (test) better?
• A group of people not restricted by a so called set of best practices and a one size fits all approach
• A world-wide support network of people who share the same fundamental principles as me

I also had a lot of responses via private channels. Direct messages, email and skype. In many instances they were from people who no longer felt that they were part of the community. They gave responses like:

• The Cult/Church of CDT due to the rhetoric used by CDT to describe their heroic and righteous fight against evil
• The Test Police because they feel the need to correct the terminology and thinking of everyone else regardless of whether they share the same world-view.
• They are an academic think-tank that is out of step with modern business needs
• CDT is RST, it’s all just RST stuff, RST is the new best practice
• If you don’t beat your drum to the CDT Rhythm they’ll beat you down hard
• The Anti-ISO group, The Anti-ISTQB people, the Anti-anyone not CDT people etc. 
• Not a safe place to share and explore

Are you surprised by this?

I was surprised by the stark polarity in what was shared openly and what was shared privately. I was surprised by who responded and who chose not to. I was surprised by specific individuals who held different opinions to what I had expected. However, I wasn't surprised to see these two views emerge.

What bothers me is that these two viewpoints seem to be a taboo topic to have a conversation about. 

On Twitter there has been activity that feels like warfare. Grenades are launched from both sides, loud voices shout at one another, misunderstandings create friendly fire, and when the smoke clears no one is sure what the outcome was. 

What I wanted to do in my talk at Copenhagen Context was start a dialog. I talked about an inclusive context-driven testing community by sharing the model I created almost two years ago. I suggested some ways in which we could alter our behaviour. I was part of an Open Season discussion where those present shared their views. 

Since then?

I continue to focus on making the New Zealand testing community as inclusive as possible. I believe that WeTest, Testing Trapeze and even this blog are making a difference in spreading the ideas from the context-driven school without the labels. I strive to be approachable, humble and open to questions.

I hope that I am setting an example as someone making a positive difference through action. My personal role model in this space is Rosie Sherry, who is the "Boss Boss" at Ministry of Testing. I observe that she has her own style of quiet leadership and a practical approach to change.

But the wider conversation is still adversarial or hidden. I'd like to see that change.

What are your thoughts?

T-Shirt print from Made in Production

How do you create a friendly conference?

One of the things that really impressed me about TestBash a few weeks ago was the warm and friendly tone of the event. I haven't been alone in my remarks on the environment created by Rosie Sherry, Vernon Richards and others.

As a conference organiser, I've been thinking a lot about what made each attendee feel this way. What were the specific actions that made such a noticeable difference when compared to other events. Here are five things that I've identified, which I'm hoping to try at the next event that I run.

Pre-Event Emails

Rosie sent an email per day to TestBash attendees in the week leading up to the event. These included the schedules for the workshops and conference, details of associated MeetUp events, invites to a slack channel, social media hashtags, information for a book swap, and a set of behavioural requests.

These emails created a sense of hype and expectation. They got everyone on the same page about the logistics of the event. They allowed people to start interacting online prior to the event itself, if they wished to do so.

These emails also served as the foundation for the community focus of the conference itself. In particular, here are the six things that Rosie asked from attendees in one of her pre-event messages:

• I ask the old timers to reach out to those that look lost.
• I ask for everyone to be brave and speak to anyone who looks like they could do with some company.
• I ask you all to be human, kind, and helpful.
• I ask you all to focus on making friends and having a good time.
• I ask you all to create some incredible memories to remember, for yourselves and everyone else who attends.
• I ask you all to speak to speakers. I can assure you they want to speak to you too.

This clearly set expectations for behaviour prior to the event.

Personalised Name Tags

The first task after registration on conference day was to create your own name tag using very large Ministry of Testing speech bubbles and a permanent marker. The name tags were handwritten. You could choose how to present yourself to others at the conference. First name only, full name or nickname. With or without social media details.

The name tags were large and colourful, which made them easy to locate on a person and easy to read. Though they clearly incorporated the Ministry of Testing brand, they didn't feel corporate. The variety of handwriting on display made something that is normally staid into something that felt informal and fun.

The name tags put a little piece of each personality on display.

No Tester Stands Alone

As the host of the day, Vernon Richards did a great job at specifically reminding people to interact with those who they didn't know. He reiterated the TestBash ethos from the pre-event emails that "No Tester Stands Alone".

This expectation was set at the start in his opening remarks and we were prompted of it prior to each break. Many of the people that I met were attending as the only tester from their company, yet I rarely encountered anyone by themselves.

Vernon demonstrated that you don't have to be afraid to remind people to be friendly.

Single Track

I had never been to a single track conference before. I was really amazed by how different it felt to be part of a large group of people who were all experiencing the same set of speakers. Having over 200 people in one place, focusing on one thing, for an entire day, creates a vibe in itself.

I also found that it changed the type of conversations I had in the breaks. Often at conferences the exchanges over tea and coffee are about what each person listened to during the last session. You'll hear snippets and impressions without really understanding what the other presentation was about. At TestBash we had all heard the same topics, so we had deeper conversations about the ideas, what could work in our own organisations, the doubts that we had, etc.

A set of shared experiences can offer opportunity to explore further together.

Open Social Events

There was a Pre-TestBash evening social and a Post-TestBash evening social. There was a Pre-TestBash run and a Post-TestBash brunch. All of these events were publicly advertised in the Software Testing Club MeetUp group.

Though they were located in a pub, the evening invitations weren't focused on drinking. They instead put emphasis on connecting with other testers. The invitations were open, inclusive, and there was room for everyone, even if it was sometimes slightly crowded!

By keeping those who wanted to socialise in one place, no one felt any fear of missing out. People were really present at these events instead of occupying social media in search of what else was happening.

There was a huge amount of support for people to connect outside of the event itself.


I'm hoping that these five ideas will help bring a little bit of the TestBash magic to my next testing event, and perhaps yours too?

Time to step forward in the testing community

Has anyone else noticed the recent spike in calls for volunteers and helpers from across the international testing community?

Call for Volunteers: AST Technology Team. Want to get involved? Here's one way. Other opportunities coming soon. https://t.co/7BkLnBwT0o -ep

— AST (@AST_News) December 29, 2015

Call for Volunteers: CAST Sponsorship Coordinators https://t.co/hwujW3l6Jq -ep

— AST (@AST_News) January 3, 2016

I Need Your Help https://t.co/BxuQiqHpLT pic.twitter.com/nfOinNOQQO

— Rosie Sherry (@rosiesherry) January 5, 2016

#Active Volunteers needed for @TestingCircus. Write to us describing how you can help us. pic.twitter.com/hau03we368

— Testing Circus (@TestingCircus) January 7, 2016

I know that these requests are partly driven by existing volunteers realising that they are overloaded by the volume of work that they've committed themselves to. But I also believe they are a sign that the testing community is growing.

It feels like there are more people attending testing conferences, registering for testing training courses, watching online testing webinars, and reading testing articles. Perhaps, in part, because the people who consume testing material are not just testers.

By comparison, there are relatively few people creating and facilitating the delivery of this content. As someone who participates in the community as a speaker, editor, mentor and organiser, I'd like to encourage you to join these ranks. It's extremely rewarding.

Think about roles you fill in the community now and what you'd like to do next. Could you write an article, submit a proposal to speak at a conference, assist the organisers at your local testing Meet Up, review articles for a magazine, act as a mentor to encourage others, or volunteer your time to one of the initiatives above?

What will you achieve in the community this year? 

A model of the testing community

Formality in open season at a peer conference

I attended the fifth annual Kiwi Workshop for Software Testing (KWST5) this week. Overall, I really enjoyed spending two days discussing the role of testing with a group of passionate people.

I took a lot from the content. But it's not what we discussed that I want to examine here, instead it's how we discussed it. As I was sharing the events of the final day with my husband he made a comment that troubled me. I took to Twitter to gauge how other people felt about his statement:

My husband thinks some exchanges in open season at #KWST5 sound unprofessional. In retrospect, maybe they were? I'm thinking about it.

— Katrina Clokie (@katrina_tester) August 4, 2015

Since this tweet created a fair amount of discussion, I thought I would take the time to gather my thoughts and those from others into a coherent narrative, and share some of the ways in which I would approach the same situation differently next time.

Who was there?

I found the dynamic at this year's conference different to previous years. It felt like I was going to spend two days with my friends. Among the attendees, there were only two people who I had never met before. Most of the people in the room were frequent attendees at KWST, or frequent attendees at WeTest, or people who help create or contribute to Testing Trapeze, or current colleagues, or former colleagues, or simply friends who I regularly chat to informally outside of work.

This meant that it was the first year that I wasn't nervous about the environment. It was also the first year that I didn't feel nervous about delivering a talk. Though I was a little anxious about the content of my experience report overall I would say that I felt relatively relaxed.

So, who exactly was in the room? James Bach, Oliver Erlewein, Richard Robinson, Aaron Hodder, Sarah Burgess, Andy Harwood, Adam Howard, Mark Boyt, Chris Priest, Mike Talks, Joshua Raine, Scott Griffiths, John Lockhart, Sean Cresswell, Rachel Carson, Till Neunast, James Hailstone, David Robinson and Katrina Clokie.

What happened?

I was the first speaker on the second day of the conference. My experience report was the first set in an agile context. The topic of the role of testing in agile had been touched on through the first day, but not explored.

I knew that there was a lot of enthusiasm for diving in to a real discussion, and was expecting a robust open season. In fact, the passion for the topic far exceeded my expectations. The particular exchanges that my husband questioned were in one particular period of the open season of my experience report.

Oliver proposed a model to represent roles in agile teams that kicked off a period of intense debate. During this time the only cards in use by participants were red, the colour that indicates the person has something urgent to say that cannot wait. I believe this spell of red cards exceeded 30 minutes, based on a comment from Mike who, when called as the subsequent yellow card, said "hooray, I've been waiting almost 40 minutes".

During this period of red cards, there were several occasions where multiple people who were waiting to speak were actively waving red cards. There were people interrupting one another. There were people speaking out of turn, without waiting to be called upon.

There were specific exchanges within this particular period that my husband questioned. I'm going to share four examples that relate specifically to my own behaviour.

The first happened relatively early in the red card period. Aaron made a statement that I started to respond to. When he attempted to interrupt my response, and he was not the first to interrupt me, I replied by raising my voice and telling him to shut up, so that I could finish what I was saying.

Perhaps halfway through the red card period, I had stopped responding to the people who were raising the red cards and the conversation was flowing among the participants themselves. Rich asked, in his role as facilitator, whether I agreed with what people were saying. I replied that no, I thought they were full of sh*t.

Near the end of the exchange I was asked whether I believed, on reflection, that I had behaved as a moron during the first experience I shared in my experience report. As a caveat my interpretation of this comment has been refuted in subsequent Twitter discussions.

Finally, there was a case where three people were speaking at once and none had used a card. I interjected with a comment that "we have cards for a reason" to shut down their conversation.

Was it a problem?

At the time, I didn't think there was a problem. I shared James' view that "it was an intense exchange done in a good and healthy spirit". I found that red card period of open season incredibly challenging, but I never felt unsafe.

On reflection though, I do think there was a problem.

Why?

My behaviour during open season contributed to an atmosphere where people were talking over one another and behaving informally. The lack of discipline in the heat of these exchanges meant that several people in the room withdrew from the discussion.

This goes directly against the spirit of a peer conference, which is designed for everyone to be included equally. I now feel that I was part of an exchange that excluded those who were unable or unwilling to voice an opinion in this atmosphere.

What would I do differently?

In future, I think that I need to remember to respect the formality of a peer conference. I felt that I was among friends and, because of this, I bought an informal attitude to my exchanges.

I believe this reflection is shared by some others who were present. On Twitter, Aaron said "I shouldn't interact with people I know during formal exchanges differently, and open season is a formal exchange". Sean said "Maybe we need to be more conscious of those relationship biases we bring to peer conferences? I'm guilty of it".

In future, if I felt overwhelmed by interruptions, I would stop and ask for support from the facilitator. On reflection, the very first time I felt compelled to raise my voice and start participating in the culture of talking across people would have been a good opportunity to pause and reset expectations for the discussion.

What do other people think?

@katrina_tester the talking over is the one thing I disliked of the last two days. I felt your frustration

— Sean (@seancresswell) August 4, 2015

@katrina_tester @HelenaJ_M @seancresswell The "shut up" I took as a comfortable exchange between two people who knew each other well

— Aaron Hodder (@AWGHodder) August 4, 2015

@katrina_tester 3/2 ;-) And I think you gave an exceptionally good ER. It did bring the discussion I was hoping for.

— Oliver Erlewein (@Oliver_NZ) August 4, 2015

@katrina_tester @awghodder @seancresswell What happened in that room was what has to happen to get deep into a subject.

— James Marcus Bach (@jamesmarcusbach) August 4, 2015

@katrina_tester @AWGHodder @seancresswell I guess we need a "whoa - ease up" clause. When people feel uncomfortable.

— Mike Talks (@TestSheepNZ) August 4, 2015

Maybe we should survey on whether ppl wanted tighter / looser moderation etc - some anonymous survey thing? #KWST5 https://t.co/4LeJxtKuxE

— John Lockhart (@johnlockhart) August 4, 2015

@katrina_tester @seancresswell Actually,perhaps CoC?I was surprised when Rich asked group not to swear at one point. 1/2

— Aaron Hodder (@AWGHodder) August 4, 2015

@TheTestDoctor @katrina_tester maybe there needs to be a "now you must listen to MEEEEE" stick, for the person doing the ER?

— Sean (@seancresswell) August 4, 2015

What do you think? How formal are your peer conferences? How formal should they be?

Women in Testing who Keynote

There has been a lot of discussion recently about women keynote speakers at testing conferences. If you haven't been following along, here are some of excellent and thought-provoking opinion pieces that have been published on this topic:

• Women and Conference Keynotes [Fiona Charles]
• Nice girls don't get the Keynote [Anne-Marie Charrett]
• Competent People and Conference Keynotes [James Bach]
• Becoming a Regular Keynote speaker [Paul Gerrard]
• Conferences and women of merit [Maaret Pyhäjärvi]

As a woman, I like to see women in keynote speaking roles. I feel they are more likely to speak about experiences that I can relate to. I like to hear from my role models in the community. I feel that having women keynote speakers sets the tone of the conference as clearly welcoming for women attendees, which improves my networking experiences.

As a conference organiser, I know it can be hard to find speakers outside of our own professional network. Because we tend to feel most comfortable with people like us, our professional networks tend to contain a high proportion of people like us. If we only utilise our networks to select keynote speakers we are likely to end up with a set of speakers that is not very diverse. And I'm not just speaking about gender diversity, or simply physical diversity, but also diversity of ideas.

That said, I feel some sympathy for organisers who feel they don't know who to ask. I wanted to do something practical to help. So I've compiled a list women who are experienced speakers, many who have delivered previous keynotes, to consider for keynote positions at your next testing conference.

I have tried to offer suggestions from around the world. If these women are unavailable, or you feel that they aren't suited to your conference, they are still likely to have a network from which they could suggest other awesome women in their region. Get in touch with them to expand your horizons and those of your conference attendees.

If you are not a conference organiser but you would like to hear from these women, you could suggest them as a speakers to your local conference convener or organising panel. Be proactive. Create the change that you want to see.

Don't tell me that there are no fantastic women in testing who can keynote at your event.

*****

Alex Schladebeck

Head of Test Consulting at BREDEX GmbH, Germany

LinkedIn
Twitter - @alex_schl
Presentations
Example Talk - EuroSTAR Conferences: What Agile Teams Can Learn From World of Warcraft

Amy Phillips

Head of Test at Songkick, United Kingdom
LinkedIn
Twitter - @itjustbroke
Speaking History
Example Talk - London Continuous Delivery MeetUp: Testing in a Continuous Delivery World

Anna Royzman

QA Manager at Liquidnet Holdings Inc., USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @QA_nna
Example Talk - Software Test Professionals: Anna Royzman on Tester Awareness

Anne-Marie Charrett

Lead Test Engineer at Tyro Payments, Australia

LinkedIn

Twitter - @charrett

Example Talk - EuroSTAR Conferences: Coaching Software Testers

Christin Wiedemann

Regional Manager at PQA Testing, Canada

LinkedIn
Twitter - @c_wiedemann
Example Talk - A1QA Interview with Christin Wiedemann

Dawn Haynes

Principal Trainer & Consultant at PerfTestPlus, Inc., USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @dawnmhaynes
Example Talk - CAST 2013 Keynote: Introspective Retrospectives: Lessons Learned and Re-Learned

Denali Lumma

Senior Manager of Engineering at Salesforce, USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @denalilumma
Example Talk - San Francisco Selenium MeetUp: Keeping Selenium Tests 100% Blue

Dorothy Graham

Software testing consultant, speaker and author, United Kingdom
LinkedIn
Twitter - @dorothygraham
Presentations
Example Talk - STAREAST 2012 Keynote: What Managers Think They Know about Test Automation

Elisabeth Hendrickson

Engineering Director at Pivotal, USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @testobsessed
Example Talk - AgileEE 2011 Keynote: Agile Testing, Uncertainty, Risk, and Why It All Works

Emily Bache

Software Developer, Consultant, Conference Speaker, Sweden

LinkedIn
Twitter - @emilybache
Example Talk - EuroPython 2014 Keynote: Will I still be able to get a job in 2024 if I don't do TDD?

Fiona Charles

Software test consultant, teacher, writer, speaker, Canada

LinkedIn
Twitter - @fionaccharles
Speaking History
Example Talk - EuroSTAR Conferences: Thinking Strategically About Testing

Gerie Owen

Business Solutions Analyst at Northeast Utilities, USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @gerieowen
Example Talk - Belgium Testing Days: How Did I Miss That Bug? Overcoming Cognitive Bias In Testing

Goranka Bjedov

Capacity Engineer at Facebook, USA

LinkedIn

Example Talk - PNSQC 2011 Keynote: The Future of Quality

Isabel Evans

Independent Consultant, United Kingdom
LinkedIn
Example Talk - EuroSTAR Conferences: Working Ourselves Out of a Job A Passion for Improvement

Janet Gregory

Agile Coach and Process consultant at DragonFire Inc., Canada

LinkedIn

Twitter - @janetgregoryca
Speaking Engagements
Example Talk - AgileVancouver Keynote: I Don't Want to Talk about Bugs - Let's Change the Conversation

Johanna Rothman

Management Consulting, USA

LinkedIn

Twitter - @johannarothman

Speaking
Example Talk - StarWest 2012 Keynote: Becoming a Kick-Ass Test Manager

Karen N Johnson

Director of Mobile Quality at Orbitz Worldwide, USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @karennjohnson
Presentations
Example Talk - StarWest 2012 Lightening Talk

Katrina Clokie

Automation Test Coach at Bank of New Zealand, New Zealand

Twitter - @katrina_tester

Speaking History

Example Talk - Interview on CASTLive 2014: Building a testing community

Lanette Creamer

QA Engineer at Sinclair Broadcast Group, USA

LinkedIn

Twitter - @lanettecream

Example Talk - Agile Vancouver: Small Agile Projects Delivering Quality in 3 weeks to 9 Months

Leah Stockley

Independent Context Driven Testing Consultant & Trainer, Singapore

LinkedIn

Twitter - @leahjstockley

Example Talk - Singapore Testing Forum May 2014: Software Engineering Culture

Lisa Crispin

Tester at Pivotal Labs, USA

LinkedIn

Twitter - @lisacrispin

Presentations
Example Talk - Agile Testing Days 2012: Debunking Agile Testing Myths

Liz Keogh

Lean / Agile Consultant, United Kingdom
Twitter - @lunivore
Example Talk - ACE! Conference Keynote: Superheated Test Tubes and Anti-Bumping Granules

Louise Perold

Test Lead at Rand Merchant Bank, South Africa

LinkedIn

Twitter - @lperold

Lynn McKee

Software Quality Professional, Canada
LinkedIn
Speaking History
Example Talk - EuroSTAR Cofnerences: Inspiring Passion in Test Teams

Maaret Pyhäjärvi 

Test Specialist at Granlund Oy, Finland

LinkedIn
Twitter
Speaking History
Example Talk - Scan Agile 2015 - Breaking Illusions: Testing is your most valuable asset!

Maria Kedemo

House of Test, Sweden

LinkedIn

Twitter - @mariakedemo

Speaking History

Example Talk - Erik Davis & Maria Kedemo explain their workshop for CAST2014

Nancy Kelln

Owner and Principal Consultant at Unimagined Testing, Canada

LinkedIn
Twitter - @nkelln
Speaking History
Example Talk - Interview on CASTLive 2012: Robots, Heuristics and Oracles

Parimala Hariprasad

Delivery Director at PASS Technologies, India

LinkedIn

Twitter - @curioustester

Example Talk - Agile Testing Alliance Bangalore 2014: Designing Agile Test Strategy for Mobile Apps

Selena Delesie

Management Consultant for Leadership & Agile Practices, Canada
LinkedIn
Twitter - @sdelesie
Example Talk - Square Pegs in Round Holes

Trish Khoo

Test Engineer at Google, USA
LinkedIn
Twitter - @hogfish
Example Talk - CAST 2014 Keynote: Scaling up with Embedded Testing

Ulrika Malmgren

Quality accelerator at Magine TV, Sweden
LinkedIn
Twitter - @Ulrikama
Example Talk - Web5Conference: Amplify your awesomeness with testing

NOTE: If you would like to be added to or removed from this list, or have any links or details updated, please let me know via email - katrinaclokie at gmail dot com - or leave a comment below

Four steps to community

As part of my role, I am expected to foster a sense of community within my organisation. This felt like a relatively abstract request, until I spent some time thinking about what makes a community. I see four key steps.

Have a place to meet

Community is created by people, so an obvious thing to do is gather people in one location. Depending on the type of community, this gathering may be physical or virtual.

Where the members of a community are co-located, it makes sense to physically be in the same place and exchange ideas in person. Organisations run team meetings and training sessions for different groupings of their staff. MeetUp groups run extra-curricular events that gather professionals of a single discipline who work in the same city.

Where the members of a community are spread nationally or internationally, there are a variety of software applications that can be used to create a virtual meeting place. Video conferencing is a norm in geographically distributed organisations. The weekend testing community use skype as a platform for testers from across the globe to participate in interactive testing challenges. There is an active community of software testers on Twitter.

Sometimes place begins serendipitously and then requires structure to be applied. A conversation with a stranger at a birthday party may be the genesis of a new community, which will then require an ongoing location.

Discover a shared view

Community is created by conversation. By talking to people we determine whether we share a set of principles, a purpose, or ideas. We discover a shared view.

In organisations, discovery of a shared view is often a facilitated activity. A team will have a leader by virtue of organisational structure. This person may have a degree of ownership in setting direction, then be tasked with bringing those around them on a journey. Training, workshops and presentations are the tools that these people can use to align people to a shared view.

Outside the workplace, discovery of a shared view is usually more organic. I have experienced connection with an individual that lead to an existing community of which I had no prior knowledge.

Establish a common dialect

One way for the uninitiated to distinguish a community is that the people within it have adopted a common set of terms. The dialect of community is important for its identity. Language is a tool we use to present a unified view of collective ideas.

For people within the community, words help to create a sense of belonging. There is comfort in being able to take shortcuts in our conversation with words that evoke a common response, factory school, or words that shortcut a known debate, testing vs. checking.

I prefer dialect that emerges colloquially, or through thinking and debate. This is the language that blooms from a seed - the useful terms will grow and the useless will wither and die. There is also a place for dialect that is enforced through organisational culture or memorising a glossary, which may be useful to disseminate information through a change of season.

Foster leadership

People join a community based on the ideas and vision presented by its most visible members. Individuals who are charismatic and communicate their ideas with passion will draw others towards them. People will want to be part of a community that includes these leaders.

People stay in a community based on the continued opportunities it presents for their personal development. Creating an environment where people can continue to learn new skills or create new connections will keep them engaged.

I think it is important to identify inclusive paths for progression within a professional community that make people feel they are in the “midst of a sphere of possibility”. Those who are in leadership roles should offer support to those who are looking to take a step forward, and encourage those who are capable but wary.

I believe that a healthy community has a popular mentoring initiative that gives people at all layers of community the ability to demonstrate and extend their abilities.


Is community really as simple as that? What would you add?

Behind the Scenes: Editor of Testing Trapeze

Our June edition of Testing Trapeze clashes with my European holiday plans, so Shirley Tricker has kindly agreed to take the reins as Guest Editor. This has prompted me to think about and record what I actually do as Editor of Testing Trapeze.

Testing Trapeze started in a rapid fashion. I had the idea on the 7th of January last year and our first edition published on the 15th of February. I didn’t really know what I was getting myself in to when we launched, but I had a clear vision of what I wanted to create. My role as Editor has evolved as I learned what was involved in realising my vision. Though I expect it will continue to change, this is a snapshot of how things currently run.

Planning

The first step in creating a magazine is finding people to write. I like to approach potential contributors at least three months in advance of our submission deadline.

Testing Trapeze follows a consistent structure. There are always five articles written by two New Zealanders, two Australians and one international contributor. There are other informal criteria that I try to meet in each edition - people from different cities, at least two women, no more than one person from my organisation, some people with a strong Twitter following, someone who is writing for a magazine for the first time, etc.

Delivering a quality line up within these parameters does require some forward planning. I use a spreadsheet to track past, present and potential contributors, as shown below:

Confirming Contributors

We share who will be contributing to our next edition in a ‘Next time in Testing Trapeze’ teaser. This serves a dual purpose by promoting our writers and making a public commitment on their behalf.

Prior to publishing this teaser, I send an email to all the people who will appear to confirm that they are actually still happy to write for our next edition. They usually are, though on occasion there is a late withdrawal and I have to find an alternative writer.

Submission Review

In the week prior to our submission deadline the writers send in their articles. I think it is important to gratefully acknowledge the receipt of each article immediately. I also remind the writer of our review process, and tell them to expect a reviewed version of their article within a week.

I then pair the writer and their article with a reviewer. I find this the trickiest part of my role as Editor, to match personalities and material so that the review process is a positive experience for both sides.

When I send the article to a reviewer, I ask them to comment on, or modify, the article directly. There is an expectation that any comments or changes will have an appropriate tone, so that their review output can be shared directly with the writer.

Sometimes the reviewer will know who wrote the article. If there are existing relationships between writer and reviewer that may cloud honesty then I generally keep it anonymous. When the writer is a first time contributor, I might ask the reviewer to focus on selecting a few pieces of feedback that are framed in an encouraging way.

In every instance I try to remain a middleman in the review process. There are many reasons for this. The reviewer may make comments they believe are fair and constructive that the writer interprets as harsh criticism. The sheer volume of review comments may be overwhelming and disheartening for the writer. The writer may become confused where the reviewer hasn't provided enough detail to guide them in making changes. I read through each review to create a consistent experience for contributors - reframing, adding or removing feedback as I feel is appropriate.

When sending a reviewed article back to the writer I always position the feedback as a set of suggestions. The writer has the final say in how many changes they'd like to make after a review. Ultimately it's their article and they need to be happy with what is published. I request a final version of the article within a week and often have to plead for author biographies and photographs too, as people are notoriously reluctant to provide these.

Design and Layout

Adam Howard does the bulk of the work to create the layout and design of Testing Trapeze. I kick off the process for a new edition by choosing a colour palette, then providing a set of images for Adam to select from. This is one of my favourite things to do.

I find our images using Google Image search, which includes tools to filter by colour palette and licensing. For example, if I want images about flying that are primarily red and labelled for non-commercial reuse:




I also share with Adam an initial opinion on the order that I would like our writers to appear on the cover and in the magazine. Often these change when I complete a final review, but Adam requires a starting point to lay out a draft.

Halfway through last year I changed the logic I applied to ordering contributors on our cover. Our earlier editions featured the international contributor in the headline position. I started to feel that this undermined our focus as a magazine for Australia and New Zealand. Now the international contributor is always listed last. For other names, the order is loosely based on how well known they are in the local testing community.

I choose the order of articles in the magazine based on their topic and tone. I apply some general rules to this. The first article often has a broad appeal. Sometimes there are a pair of articles that cover a similar area, despite there being no theme to our editions. These are split across the second and fourth position in the magazine so that they are separated in the reader’s mind. I often place the longest article in the edition in the middle.

Editorial

Though it is a relatively easy task, I dread writing the editorial. I think this stems from my own view when reading a magazine - the editorial is in the way of what I really want to read. As Editor, I don’t feel like the star of the magazine. I’m simply creating a platform for others to shine. I try to keep my editorial short and focused on acknowledging all our contributors. I don’t want to distract from our consistently amazing content that speaks for itself.

Final Review

As I receive the final submissions from writers these are saved into a shared Google Drive folder. Adam creates a draft version of the magazine, then I do a final review. When we published our first edition this was an intense process. Now that we’re established, this review usually includes a handful of cosmetic changes.

This is also the point at which I change my mind about ordering of our articles, though I can rarely articulate the reasons why I want to shuffle things around. I feel that a rhythm appears when the articles are strung together. Our final note is static, it’s always our international contributor. Sometimes the other notes have to move for the magazine to really sing.

Publish

Ajoy Singha, the Editor of Testing Circus, agreed to host Testing Trapeze on the Testing Circus website as an associated publication. He did this without seeing a single edition, and his instant support of my idea to create a new magazine was incredibly encouraging.

When we have a final edition I login to the Testing Circus site to create a draft post that includes a photo of our cover and a list of the articles that are included. Initially we adopted the same format as Testing Circus for these posts and, now that we’ve published a few editions, I simply copy and paste from previous issues of Testing Trapeze to create new ones.

I email the final PDF to Ajoy for him to upload to the Testing Circus site. He updates the draft post with a link, then leaves it for me to review and publish. This works well, particularly as we are working across different timezones. We want to publish when our readers in Australia and New Zealand are actually awake!

Marketing

Once we publish, the final task is to let people know that our latest edition is available. I email all the contributors to the edition, both writers and reviewers, to let them know we have published. I tweet and update our Facebook page. 

As people start to read the edition, I amplify any positive feedback that we receive. This echo usually lasts about a week, by which point I assume that we have reached everyone who is interested. I try to avoid generating noise in our social media accounts.

This approach to marketing relies heavily on Twitter, so I have recently set up a mailing list for Testing Trapeze subscriptions to capture readers who don't use this platform. This list will send one email per edition, or just six emails per year. I hope that we will see many people choose to use this option.

Testing Trapeze is a magazine that I am really proud to be a part of.

Conferences build community

Community is important to me. The primary reason that I volunteer my time to organise testing events is to offer people an opportunity to meet their peers and share ideas. It is the opportunity for interaction that I value, and I think that conferences are an essential part of this. Conferences build community.

A successful conference is not just about delivery of great content. It also provides a platform for every attendee to genuinely connect with another; an interaction that is the start of a supportive, inspiring or challenging professional relationship. When reflecting on a conference I find that the presentations may have faded from memory, but the conversations that spawned ongoing associations are much easier to recall.

As a conference organiser, the responsibility for setting the tone of the conference weighs heavier on me than selecting the ideas. It seems that achieving success in the community aspect of a conference is much more difficult than the content.

And everything begins with the speaker selection.

I get frustrated when I feel that a list of speakers isn't a true mirror of the community behind a conference, but instead a distorted reflection suited to a fairground Hall of Mirrors. As a conference organiser,  I am looking for strong presenters with innovative ideas who truly reflect the diversity of our profession. I am constantly conscious of creating a speaker line up that engages the brain and accurately shows who we are as a group.

This is a challenge and, when I consider diversity, I consider many attributes. As a woman in testing, I certainly think about the gender ratio in our speaker selection. But I also think about years of experience in testing, where people are employed, ethnicity, age and reputation. If I want the conference to offer something for everyone in the community, then I have to consider everyone in the community by focusing on what distinguishes us from each other.

I don't feel that I have ever had to select a speaker who didn't deserve their place. I simply consider diversity alongside the experiences and ideas that people bring. I think about the audience for a topic rather than the topic in isolation. There are instances when a proposal holds little appeal to me personally, but I feel it would be a great session for others within the community, both for its content and the opportunity to establish the presenter as an active voice.

Ideas are rarely innovative in every context. So considering ideas alone is an injustice to the community that the conference is for. I believe that every organiser should actively think about the people that they serve when selecting speakers.

When asked "What did you enjoy about the conference?", attendees at the recent WeTest Weekend Workshops referenced the topics, discussions, session and learning. I think we had fantastic content. However the strongest theme in responses to this question was the people. I believe this feedback reflects our effort as organisers to put the people of the community at the heart of our decisions on their behalf.

What did you enjoy about the conference?
WeTest Weekend Workshops 2014

Women in Testing on Twitter

After speaking at a Girl Geek Dinner in mid October, I became really aware that my Twitter stream contained tweets that were mostly from men. Over the past month I have experimented with who I am following to try and correct this imbalance.

The categories are imperfect and the list is likely to be incomplete, but here are some of the women in testing that I would recommend following:

DISCLAIMER: I've grouped based on the reasons that I follow these women. Though there are many individuals who could appear in multiple categories, I wanted to share the primary reasons why I value their contributions on Twitter. This is one specific facet of their professional persona and, should you choose to follow them, you may see things quite differently.

Crème de la crème

“the best person or thing of a particular kind.”
Elisabeth Hendrickson and Lisa Crispin are among the most widely known and well regarded software testers in the world. With followers in the thousands, they are likely to be a part of your Twitter stream already. Though Elisabeth and Lisa often tweet about their lives outside of testing, they also share articles and tweets from their extensive professional networks that I would miss otherwise.

Community Leaders

“the person who leads a group or organization.”
As an organiser of WeTest and editor of Testing Trapeze, I like to tweet content from testers around New Zealand to promote the wonderful things that are happening in this part of the world. These are the women who adopt similar behaviour for the communities that they lead.

Alessandra Moreira is the only woman on the Association for Software Testing (AST) Board of Directors and a co-organiser for Weekend Testing Australia and New Zealand (WTANZ). Amy Phillips is the co-organiser for Weekend Testing Europe (WTE).

Anne-Marie Charrett was a co-organiser of Let's Test Oz, Anna Royzman was a co-organiser of the Conference of the Association for Software Testing (CAST) in 2014, Helena Jeret-Mäe is the content owner of the upcoming Nordic Testing Days in 2015, and Rosie Sherry organises TestBash annually as well as running the Ministry of Testing.

In initiatives that specifically focus on women, Jyothi Rangaiah is the editor of the Women in Testing magazine, and Lorinda Brandon runs the Women in Line initiative to get more women speaking at technology conferences.

Challengers

“a call to prove or justify something.”
There are those who generally seek to challenge opinion and question what they've heard. These women appear unafraid; they share and generate content to disrupt the status quo. Through these women I am exposed to new ideas and test my own assumptions.

Fiona Charles, Karen N Johnson, Trish Khoo, Lanette Creamer, Hilary Weaver, Kate Falanga and Natalie Bennett are all based in North America, Maaret Pyhäjärvi and Meike Mertsch are in Europe, and Kim Engel in New Zealand.

Cheerleaders

“an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of someone or something.”
I was hesitant to use this term, as some may hold quite a negative connotation of a cheerleader, but I mean it in the sense of the definition above. These women are enthusiastic and vocal members of the testing community. They encourage, converse, and share information, usually in a friendly and upbeat way.

Parimala Hariprasad and Smita Mishra are in India, Anna Baik in the UK, Maria Kedemo in Europe, and Jean Ann Harrison and Teri Charles are in the US. They create a steady flow of positivity with links to a wide variety of content.

Constant

"occurring continuously over a period of time."
Claire Moss gets her own category as a live tweeter. Usually Claire is relatively quiet on Twitter. The exception is when she is attending testing events and her account erupts into a stream of constant activity. You'll almost feel like you've attended the conference itself.

Climbing

"to move to a higher position."
Finally there are the women who share and contribute excellent content on Twitter, but may be less well known than others listed here. Carol Brands, Jacky Fain, Alex Schladebeck, Elisabeth Hocke, Ioana Serban and Shirley Tricker.

*****

As with any post of this kind, I'm certain I've missed people who should be included. Please leave your recommendations in a comment below.

The context driven testing community

At the recent Let's Test Oz conference, James Bach presented a model of the context driven testing community. His diagram showed the community split across three levels of engagement where an "inner circle" contained those capable of deep intellectual exchange; committed innovators and philosophers.

James talked about the community in his signature blunt manner, with straightforward language of cliques, pretenders and lobbyists. He assigned the task of niceties to a greeter, the friendly face of welcome, and coupled these people with guides, who identify and elevate people with potential.

James spoke plainly of an exclusive and elitist culture; by definition 'a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society'. I believe that James is comfortable in this type of environment, which is similar to the way that he described the ISST on Twitter earlier this year:

@badbud65 I like exclusivity. I want to exclude people who aren't serious enough. It's okay if you don't like that. You can have YOUR club.
— James Marcus Bach (@jamesmarcusbach) June 14, 2014

My concern is that this rhetoric of exclusion and elitism creates the impression that the context driven testing community is actually a crowd, a commotion, or even a cult.

I believe the community has grown beyond a central clique. I would like to see it represented in a more inclusive way. I see a group of people that are interested in furthering their professional skills; where intent rather than commitment is the ticket to entry.

As such, I'd like to see us adopt an inclusive model:

If it looks a bit like I turned things inside out, then you're on the right track. Let me explain.

Someone with no knowledge of context driven testing is likely to encounter a leader of the community first. These are the people with the greatest reputation and professional presence. To a newcomer, these leaders may appear to be offering a lone dissenting opinion.

Consequently, the leaders of the community are not hidden at its center. They are the public face of context driven testing, and most likely to be approached by those who are eager to learn more. I am certain that James is dealing with more enquiries about context driven testing every day than I am!

Rather than expecting a greeter to welcome people, a path should be marked so that anyone in the community can simply direct the newcomers to this route. I believe there are a common set of first steps that any person with an intent to learn more about context driven testing may take. These should be known and accessible.

This model suggests six ways that people become involved with the community:

• Readers - start reading testing articles and magazines, e.g. Testing Trapeze
• Followers - subscribe to context driven testing blogs or follow the Twitter accounts of people who are active in the community
• Viewers - watch a testing presentation or conference talk online
• Event Attendees - participate in a local testing MeetUp group or attend a testing conference, e.g. Let's Test 
• Students - attend a training course on context driven testing, e.g. Rapid Software Testing
• Inexperienced Practitioners - try a new testing practice in your workplace, e.g. visual test coverage modelling

Newcomers should feel from the very beginning that they have walked into the middle of an inclusive environment. Rather than joining the outer edge of an intellectual clique, they are in the midst of a sphere of possibility. This model offers clarity in the growth and progression that is possible within the context driven testing community.

Commitment and reputation are implicit in the layers of the model. From the center, where people are consumers of information, a person may progress to participating in the community with an active voice.

Contribution is naturally associated with challenge, as by expressing an opinion there's a chance that others will disagree with it. The community ethos is that "no one is entitled to an unchallenged opinion". I simply suggest we move the challenge from our doormat and place it at a point where people are better prepared to respond appropriately.

Finally, the strength of the community is wider than researchers, philosophers, and innovators. Those who are truly committed will naturally aspire to the highest levels, but in a variety of contexts. There are many opportunities, and most of those who operate at this level will happily assist others that want to develop as leaders.

The context driven testing community should articulate the ways in which people can join, market the opportunities for personal development, and encourage newcomers to grow the craft. Creating an inclusive model of the community is a first step in demonstrating the nature of a group that has grown beyond an elite club.

Community Question

Last night I slammed my finger in a door. It really hurt and it made me pretty grumpy. This happened as I was setting up a room for a WeTest Workshop that I was supposed to be facilitating. I decided to delegate facilitation to my friend Damian, who I was confident could do an excellent job of it. He did. 

A year ago, Damian had never participated in a LAWST style conference. Last night was the second time he facilitated one of our workshop events in Wellington. I believe this happened because he was asked; to attend, to present, to facilitate.

I am of the opinion that there are a number of people in software testing who are waiting for an opportunity. I hear people lamenting how difficult it is to create a community and this always makes me wonder, who have you asked?

When Aaron and I kicked off WeTest, we felt that there wasn't a strong community in Wellington. The opportunities available for testers didn't allow for passionate discussion on our industry; they were occasions that allowed presenters to escape unchallenged. We knew very few people to approach to change this situation. We started with the Wellington based folk who attended KWST2.

It took weeks for our first event to fill. We asked everyone we knew. Then we asked them to ask people. Then we asked on mailing lists and twitter. I remember how excited we were to finally find 20 people who wanted to talk about testing. 

After our first workshop the group started to grow. Those who attended recommended the event to others. A recommendation is not dissimilar to an invitation. In saying "you should come along to one of these" you're letting someone know that you believe they have the skills and potential to participate in, and enjoy, a challenging workshop environment. 

We now have over 100 members and our workshop events can fill within hours.

We're still asking, but now the questions have changed. Do you want to start a WeTest in Auckland? Do you want to lead a community of new testers? Do you want to console a community of battered warriors? Would you be willing to sponsor a new testing conference?

You can create a community. Ask someone to help you. Ask people to join you. Ask people to share their ideas.