| Time | Nick | Message |
|---|---|---|
| 16:59 | mchua | Who's here? |
| 16:59 | (While I pull up the agenda) | |
| 16:59 | bjordan | Brian |
| 16:59 | hi! | |
| 16:59 | mchua | hey bjordan ! |
| 16:59 | adricnet | may or may not be here. Quantum cats are tricksy. |
| 16:59 | marcopg | just watching |
| 17:01 | mchua | Agenda is at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Comm[…]etings/2008-11-06 |
| 17:01 | * 1 Previous meeting's action items | |
| 17:01 | * 2 Activity testing | |
| 17:01 | o 2.1 Community testing portal page (lfaraone, mchua) | |
| 17:01 | o 2.2 Current Activity prep-for-test procedure feedback (mchua) | |
| 17:01 | o 2.3 Status of current Activities being tested (mchua, frandog) | |
| 17:01 | o 2.4 Prioritizing Activities to test (gregdek) | |
| 17:01 | o 2.5 Displaying testing metrics in motivating ways (cjl, from notes) | |
| 17:01 | * 3 Test Activity brainstorming (cjb) | |
| 17:01 | * 4 Some notes on infrastructure | |
| 17:01 | Any additions? | |
| 17:01 | (or comments?) | |
| 17:02 | cjl | * |
| 17:02 | mchua | cjl: invisible agenda item? :) |
| 17:02 | Note that we don't seem to have a lot of people here tonight, so we might want to defer a few of these discussions and find a time that's better for more folks to make. We'll get to that one later though. | |
| 17:03 | cjl | just shining a star |
| 17:03 | mchua | grins |
| 17:03 | #topic last week's action items | |
| 17:03 | #TOPIC last week's action items | |
| 17:04 | argh, meetingbot is not an op... oh well. | |
| 17:04 | gregdek to compile proposals/ideas/suggestions for "how to prioritize Activities to test" and lead a short discussion on that during next week's meeting | |
| 17:04 | gregdek's not here, but we have good notes on this so we'll go over that in a sec | |
| 17:04 | # cjl to write out a first braindump on testing metrics and how to display them in ways that would be motivators to community testers and activity developers (done!) | |
| 17:04 | thanks, cjl! | |
| 17:04 | # mchua, lfaraone to pair on getting a test community portal page up with the current procedure that we're using to get Activities to testable-ness, so we have something concrete to look at next meeting and it's easier to make suggestions for improvements (done! Community testing) | |
| 17:05 | mchua, frandog to find someone to work with eduardo to push out the Analyze activity testing for a first round (this is a pretty vague action item, but we can start smaller-scale - I'd like to have at least 15 people run through the test case and report results) not done, we'll go over why in a sec | |
| 17:05 | cjb to think about how to run a Test Activity brainstorm at next week's meeting, bouncing ideas off of people as needed (not done, I think... we can defer this) | |
| 17:05 | #ACTION mchua to follow-up with outstanding action items from last week (gregdek, frances, cjb) | |
| 17:06 | hey gregdek! | |
| 17:06 | gregdek | hullos. |
| 17:06 | Sorry I'm late. :) | |
| 17:06 | Flaky wireless at the coffeeshop. | |
| 17:06 | mchua | we were just wondering about your AI from last week - "compile proposals/ideas/suggestions for "how to prioritize Activities to test" and lead a short discussion on that during next week's meeting" |
| 17:06 | gregdek: no worries. | |
| 17:07 | gregdek | Oh, right. |
| 17:07 | Did you ever send out the email I sent to you? | |
| 17:07 | mchua | gregdek: ready for that part of the discussion in a few minutes? (couple things we need to get through first) |
| 17:07 | gregdek: which one? | |
| 17:07 | gregdek | The long email I sent to you and Kim -- you asked my permission to send it out more broadly, iirc? |
| 17:07 | mchua | gregdek: oh! yes. Gotcha. You're all set then. |
| 17:08 | hey kimquirk ! | |
| 17:08 | kimquirk | hi |
| 17:08 | gregdek | key kimquirk |
| 17:08 | hey kimquirk :) | |
| 17:08 | kimquirk | how's it going gregdek |
| 17:08 | gregdek | Well enough, thanks. |
| 17:08 | mchua | gregdek: thanks for reminding me - we'll get to your email down the line tonight. |
| 17:08 | gregdek | ok. |
| 17:09 | mchua | Anyway, so y'all don't have to listen to me blather on, we're looking for feedback on... |
| 17:09 | #TOPIC Community testing portal page | |
| 17:09 | http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_testing | |
| 17:09 | #LINK http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_testing | |
| 17:09 | Behold, the ugliness. | |
| 17:09 | The most functional part is http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Comm[…]_testing_meetings | |
| 17:10 | joef asked that community test stuff be separated from general testing things on the wiki, which is the reason for the split | |
| 17:10 | comments, questions, complaints, offers of help? ;) I'll try to ask skierpage to lend a hand at making this more SMW-better, but this portal is for you folks, so tell us what you want | |
| 17:11 | howdy fhop - we're taking comments on http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Comm[…]_testing_meetings and http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Community_testing | |
| 17:11 | fhop | I'm here...sorry I'm late! |
| 17:12 | cjl | mchua, I want to see an example of an input for for a test case. :-) |
| 17:12 | s/for for/form for/ | |
| 17:12 | mchua | cjl: point. that's actually our next agenda item, so totally want lots of comments on it. ;) |
| 17:13 | anything else that people would like to see here, or should we move on to that requested feature? | |
| 17:13 | ...I'll take that as a yes ;) | |
| 17:13 | work on the portal will continue, feedback always welcomed. | |
| 17:14 | #TOPIC Current Activity prep-for-test procedure feedback | |
| 17:14 | My guess is that this will occupy most of our meeting tonight, since cjb isn't here for the Test Activity brainstorm (I'll move that to next week) | |
| 17:14 | so I'd like to spend a good half-hour or so on this and let 'er rip | |
| 17:14 | if we can | |
| 17:14 | so gregdek asked me the other day how to get started doing Activity testing | |
| 17:15 | my response "Er.... you.... um..." *goes off and makes http://wiki.laptop.org/go/How_[…]test_an_Activity* "...use our handy guide!" | |
| 17:15 | our handy guide is currently not terribly handy | |
| 17:15 | kimquirk | it looks like a good start |
| 17:16 | mchua | kimquirk also requested earlier that we spend some time on quality, metrics, and how people can take ownership of that for specific activities or features of Sugar, so I guess this is also the place to have that discussion |
| 17:16 | kimquirk | I think we can add to the high level topics that would follow from 'decide on testing goals' |
| 17:16 | mchua | gregdek: thoughts on the page? what are you getting stopped by? |
| 17:16 | kimquirk | mchua: yes... that is, but we should also get the stub of the entire things |
| 17:16 | mchua | cjl: does the Analyze activity give you the example of a input form for a test case that you wanted? |
| 17:16 | bjordan: can you imagine doing the same thing for, say, Paint? | |
| 17:17 | cjl | didn't look super close at Anayze. . .looks again. |
| 17:17 | mchua | kimquirk: sorry, I'm not sure what you meant by "stub of the entire thing..." |
| 17:17 | kimquirk | so, after you decide on testing goals (and test case coverage); then you create test case(s); then you ask people to help execute them |
| 17:17 | (or something like that) | |
| 17:18 | mchua | oh! yes. |
| 17:18 | We're definitely missing those future steps. :) | |
| 17:18 | notes that these should be put in... | |
| 17:19 | cjl | mchua: unfortunately while the test case seems well described in scripted fashion on http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Tests/Activity/Analyze It is not at all clear to me how I would record the results of my running through that script. |
| 17:19 | kimquirk | as for the testing goals... they should identify the features of the activity, and maybe we suggest stubbing out test cases that are relatively isolated and easy to implement by themselves. |
| 17:19 | And a good step by step on how to record and view results. | |
| 17:19 | mchua | cjl: ooh, good point. Thanks. |
| 17:19 | kimquirk | (as cjl suggests) |
| 17:20 | mchua | cjl: I'll fix that for Analyze... gregdek, do you think you could use that as an example once I'm done to generalize how to do it for Speak and other Activities? |
| 17:20 | cjl | Test ing great and happens all the time. recording results of testing gets you closert to something QA-ish. |
| 17:20 | mchua | cjl: +1 |
| 17:21 | marcopg | is the idea to register results in the wiki? |
| 17:21 | mchua | kimquirk: re: stubbing out test cases, do you have any preference for how we'd organize those on the wiki? We'd end up with lots of subpages, like [[Tests/Activity/Analyze/Network screen]] and [[Tests/Activity/Analyze/Presence server screen]] and... |
| 17:21 | marcopg | they will need to get in trac at some point, I guess |
| 17:21 | cjl | Also create opportunity for feedback on test case (testing hte test), this of course could just be handled by talk page, but then you should say "Commment on this test qua test on talk page" |
| 17:21 | kimquirk | marcopg: if you 'edit with form' on a test case, then you will get an 'add another' button that lets you add results. |
| 17:22 | mchua: I think you have a good view of organzation, so what you suggest, we'll follow :-) | |
| 17:22 | mchua | marcopg: I think the idea is to register results in the wiki, and then if a test fails, then file bugs against that component and link to those bugs from the failed test case as a "why this test failed" indicator... kimquirk? the original form was your design |
| 17:22 | kimquirk | marcopg: there is a place to add trac bug numbers in the results table |
| 17:23 | mchua: right | |
| 17:23 | marcopg | cool |
| 17:23 | mchua | sweet. marcopg, does that sound ok for developers, or do you want more info? |
| 17:23 | kimquirk | mchua: it actually wasn't my design... that's funny because I thought you were behind a lot of the original design :-) |
| 17:23 | marcopg | looks pretty good to me! |
| 17:23 | mchua | yay! |
| 17:24 | hm, we must track down this mysterious person behind the SMW test cases... francesca, I think... | |
| 17:24 | kimquirk | i think you're right |
| 17:24 | i thought she was working with you for wiki expertise | |
| 17:24 | cjl | marcopg, We should not think of these test cases as instantly generating a solid trac bug. These are screening tests to be run by less skilled. Numerous fails would draw deeper attention. |
| 17:24 | kimquirk | cjl: sounds right |
| 17:24 | bjordan | mchua: (re: making a testing guide for paint?) sure |
| 17:25 | gregdek | ... |
| 17:25 | marcopg | cjl: yup, but we should make sure they makes their way into trac, at some point |
| 17:25 | cjl | yes |
| 17:25 | joef | i think it was my design and Charlie, at al execution... |
| 17:26 | cjl | Which is why the results should be highly visible and searchable (and watched by someone intersted in bridging those systems). |
| 17:26 | mchua | bjordan: this is great - that means we have 3 Activities beta-testing the procedure in http://wiki.laptop.org/go/How_to_test_an_Activity, which means that you and gregdek and fhop are going to find a lot of my "Mel can't write" bugs there :) |
| 17:26 | joef: kudos on the design, then :) | |
| 17:26 | (I like it a lot) | |
| 17:26 | joef | ...execution not exactly the way i wanted it... but blame that wiki!!! |
| 17:26 | mchua: thanks! | |
| 17:27 | mchua | actually, this might be a good time to skip over the "status of activities being tested" agenda item (because they're all in the "just getting started" phase) and talk about how to prioritize which ones to test |
| 17:27 | gregdek | hrms. |
| 17:28 | mchua | gregdek: thoughts? :) |
| 17:28 | gregdek | The Patton quote comes to mind. |
| 17:28 | "Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what needs to be done, and let the surprise you with their ingenuity." | |
| 17:28 | s/the/them | |
| 17:28 | cjl | The point is to make the other poor bastard die for his country"? |
| 17:29 | gregdek | LOL. |
| 17:29 | No, the other quote. :) | |
| 17:29 | cjl | ok |
| 17:29 | bjordan | hehe |
| 17:29 | mchua | gregdek: I thought you were going to say "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." |
| 17:29 | joef | gregdek: exactly how our system of test cases was created! |
| 17:29 | gregdek | I'm a bit concerned about building test cases with the expectation that novices are going to spend 10 minutes testing and end up doing something useful. |
| 17:30 | adricnet | For varying definitions of novice.. |
| 17:30 | Without test cases, can any useful data be collected or harvested ? | |
| 17:31 | fhop | gregdek: what concerns you? |
| 17:31 | gregdek | Well... |
| 17:31 | mchua | I was going to ask for ideas on how to recruit large numbers of unskilled short-term testers, but... gregdek raises a good point. to put it bluntly, community testers are bloody brilliant people; should we ask them to spend their time recruiting drones? |
| 17:31 | being a drone isn't much fun. Managing drones... not really fun either. | |
| 17:31 | gregdek | ...it seems to me that the work of building the test cases, and the work of executing test cases, are (a) going to widely vary by activity, and (b) for a given activity, will represent a 90% overlap between "planning" and "executing". |
| 17:31 | joef | adricnet: yes. |
| 17:31 | gregdek | It seems to me... |
| 17:31 | fhop | gregdek: ...that they won't be able to communicate what they find or that it won't be worthwhile in the long run? |
| 17:32 | gregdek | ...that one person who is *dedicated* to testing *one activity* will be able to do almost everything that is required to keep that activity well-tested. |
| 17:32 | cjl | There is some weight to the argument to that if you can describe a test precisely enough for a total n00b, you can probably jsut automate it instead. |
| 17:32 | joef | adricnet: ...it's called "ad hoc testing" |
| 17:33 | fhop | gregdek: i see...better results from more intense "fiddlings" |
| 17:33 | mchua | gregdek: ...and that OLPC should bribe them with an XO if they maintain an Activity that we ship for the length of a release cycle? ;) |
| 17:33 | gregdek | I don't want shallow testing. I want deep testing. |
| 17:33 | mchua: Maybe. :) | |
| 17:33 | mchua | cjl: agreed. we have, uh... some work to do on making automation possible for Activity testing. |
| 17:33 | bjordan | an example of a bug that a strict functionality test case might not catch (but deep testing might): http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/8864 |
| 17:33 | fhop | gregdek: however, with that said, some of the shallow testing can point us to where the more in depth testing should be directed |
| 17:33 | mchua | marcopg: which reminds me that I probably should start hitting the #sugar channel and asking about sugarbot and etc. |
| 17:34 | adricnet | joef: It is, and I do it :) .. want to develop better sol'ns and automate all the boring stuff |
| 17:34 | gregdek | fhop: We can give very high-level general guidelines for all activities. |
| 17:34 | joef | adricnet: automation isn't cheap |
| 17:34 | marcopg | mchua: sugarbot is on my list of things to do but I'm not sure whenever I'll get at it :( |
| 17:34 | mchua | howdy mvn071, and welcome - in the middle of the test community meeting right now, http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Comm[…]etings/2008-11-06 |
| 17:34 | marcopg | mchua: so help totally appreciated :) |
| 17:34 | gregdek | Like: who's the owner? how do I file a bug? How do I record results? |
| 17:34 | mchua | marcopg: sugarbot is now on my list of things to do also, so I should be getting around to it :) |
| 17:34 | gregdek | But building a full test case is *hard*. |
| 17:34 | adricnet | joef: No, but it's easier to keep bots interested and fed than volunteers :D |
| 17:35 | marcopg | mchua: yay :) |
| 17:35 | adricnet: you also need to keep developers interested in writing testcases | |
| 17:35 | gregdek | I'm not sure I agree with that. |
| 17:36 | I'm not sure that developers will ever be properly incented to write test cases, ever. | |
| 17:36 | mchua | adricnet: are you interested in working on an automation system? I could totally use a hand, especially in coming up with a good design (as in, "I'm a tester. I want to automate this boring thing. What is my ideal interface to do so / the most beautiful tool I could imagine for it?") |
| 17:36 | adricnet | marcopg: A worthy goal as well |
| 17:36 | mchua: I want to help you dream it up, yeah. We may have trick someone else into coding it :D | |
| 17:36 | marcopg | gregdek: it's tricky for sure |
| 17:36 | mchua | adricnet: *grin* I've found that if you spec things out well enough, finding a volunteer to code it is the easy part. ;) |
| 17:36 | marcopg | I was pointing out exactly that problem there |
| 17:37 | mchua | adricnet: so dreaming help is what's needed most atm. |
| 17:37 | Since we're still on the topic of "how to test Activities," I wanted to bring up something that we've briefly discussed in internal QA before - exploratory testing. | |
| 17:38 | #LINK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploratory_testing | |
| 17:38 | this is the least drone-like way of testing that I know of | |
| 17:38 | marcopg | I like the idea of starting community testing |
| 17:38 | s/community/automated | |
| 17:38 | mchua | it takes as its thesis exactly what gregdek put forth about planning and executing tests having a huge amount of overlap |
| 17:39 | marcopg | but I'm convinced in the short time we can get much better results improving community testing |
| 17:39 | bjordan | mchua: I've got some spec'd out bugs for Paint I could use some help finding a volunteer to code/commit in that case :) |
| 17:39 | marcopg | developers time is too much of a precious resource atm |
| 17:39 | mchua | and what I like most about it is that it starts with the assumption that testers are Really, Really Smart and that to use anything less than their full talents on whaling on a piece of software is a crime |
| 17:39 | gregdek | My take is simple. |
| 17:39 | mchua | bjordan: cool-o, point me towards them in email? |
| 17:39 | bjordan | mchua: fo sho |
| 17:39 | mchua | bjordan: thanks! |
| 17:41 | waits to hear gregdek's thoughts | |
| 17:41 | gregdek | Oh, I got distracted, sorry. :) |
| 17:41 | marcopg | hehhe /me waiting too |
| 17:42 | gregdek | LOL! |
| 17:42 | OK. | |
| 17:42 | Simple thought #1: | |
| 17:42 | It all starts with a passionate person. | |
| 17:42 | Simple thought #2: | |
| 17:42 | Better to get excellent testing for one or two activities than crappy testing for a ton of activities. | |
| 17:42 | Simple thought #3: | |
| 17:43 | The people who are going to have the best input are going to be the testers, NOT the developers. :) | |
| 17:43 | Which means, to me: | |
| 17:43 | Simple action plan. | |
| 17:43 | #1. Advertise for testers. | |
| 17:43 | #2. Put them in charge of figuring all this out for one activity each. If you find 3 folks, that's probably great. | |
| 17:43 | #3. Write the tools that *they* tell you to write. | |
| 17:44 | Oh, and #4. make sure that they have incredibly close relationships with their activity developers from day one. | |
| 17:44 | That's it. | |
| 17:44 | mchua | likes #3 and #4 especially |
| 17:44 | joef | gregdek: i'm on your side! |
| 17:44 | gregdek | trac stuff, wiki plans, all the other stuff: let the testers drive that stuff. |
| 17:44 | marcopg | heh gregdek is wise as usual |
| 17:45 | cjl | mchua gregdek that begins to narrow down the group you can recruit from (very small community), and most of them are probably trying to devel something on their own anyway and only want to test things that get in their way (i.e. not activities). |
| 17:45 | gregdek | cjl: Not sure I agree there either. |
| 17:46 | There are plenty of smart people who want to help. | |
| 17:46 | cjl | I'm not saying that gregdek is worong, these highly engaged testers will give you the best results, the querstion is can you do thta an do something broader. |
| 17:46 | gregdek | They just can't find anything they can really drive. |
| 17:46 | I'm a firm believer in focus, and developing the right model. | |
| 17:46 | marcopg | cjl: in my experience even just one very good tester can make a huge difference |
| 17:46 | gregdek | And starting small, and being HIGHLY effective at one thing. |
| 17:47 | cjl | gregdek: I like the way it sounds, question is why hasn't it happened yet? |
| 17:47 | and what happens when tha one good individual moves along. | |
| 17:47 | mchua | is thinking of the test group of high school students that Caroline Meeks is trying to build locally in Boston... if we can get each student - or a student pair - to take on an Activity, and give them access to good mentors... |
| 17:47 | marcopg | cjl: it started to happen |
| 17:47 | cjl: at the end of 8.2 cycle we had some really excellent testing, by community people | |
| 17:48 | gregdek | cjl: Because we haven't asked in the right way. :) |
| 17:48 | Give people ownership of something -- say "this problem domain is yours, we're counting on you" -- and *amazing* things happen. Amazing things. | |
| 17:48 | cjl | I'm not trying to fight with you guys, just challenge to test the strength of the ideas (cjl = idea tester) |
| 17:48 | joef | gregdek: right |
| 17:49 | gregdek | And activity QA is enough out of the critical path, and not getting done anyway, that it's safe to do so. |
| 17:49 | Why do people get involved with OLPC? Folks who aren't getting paid, anyway? | |
| 17:49 | adricnet | gregdek: Masochism? |
| 17:50 | the Mission ? | |
| 17:50 | gregdek | adricnet: Really? :) |
| 17:50 | mchua | marcopg: what happened? or is it continuing to happen? |
| 17:50 | votes masochism! | |
| 17:50 | joef | gregdek: ownership of "something" |
| 17:50 | gregdek | Because they want to help, and they want to be recognized. |
| 17:50 | They want to help you guys change the freaking world. :) | |
| 17:50 | mchua | notes that there are 9 mins left in meeting time tonight and that we haven't hit on two topics |
| 17:51 | # 2.4 Prioritizing Activities to test (gregdek) | |
| 17:51 | # 2.5 Displaying testing metrics in motivating ways (cjl, from notes) | |
| 17:51 | gregdek | Oh, ok. :) |
| 17:51 | marcopg | mchua: after release as usual we had a big break on people involvement |
| 17:51 | joef | gregdek: by owning a piece of the "process" |
| 17:51 | mchua | (gregdek, cjl, ok to push those discussons to email? that way we can keep talking about this) |
| 17:51 | gregdek | I've had my say anyway. |
| 17:51 | Find passionate people and give them ownership of problems. :) | |
| 17:51 | cjl | sure |
| 17:51 | marcopg | mchua: which I think it's a problem we need to address |
| 17:52 | mchua | marcopg, what if we used one of gregdek's ideas and told people |
| 17:52 | "Ok - if you spend these 6 months pre-release testing an Activity, and you get it tested well enough that we ship it" | |
| 17:52 | "We'll list you as The Tester!!! in the thank-you notes for that build, *and* we'll ship you an XO of your own for free" | |
| 17:53 | gregdek | They'll need the XO in the first place to test. :) |
| 17:53 | mchua | "if you agree to, for the next 6 months (of the release cycle) maintain the testing and act as the community focal point for keeping that Activity good" |
| 17:53 | fhop | ...and I'll shake some hands, kiss some babies |
| 17:53 | bjordan | mchua: re: 2.4, I suggest we start with G1G1 activities, maybe poll which ones people think are most riddled with solv-able bugs? |
| 17:53 | fhop | SPEAK! |
| 17:53 | gregdek | I'VE GOT SPEAK. |
| 17:53 | bjordan | speak has little to no bugs |
| 17:53 | gregdek | I HAVE CLAIMED SPEAK. |
| 17:53 | bjordan | :-p |
| 17:53 | gregdek | There is a bug, you know. |
| 17:53 | bjordan | compared to the other g1g1 activiteis |
| 17:53 | fhop | its just a major bummer when it doesn't work |
| 17:53 | gregdek | "Swahili" is listed as "Swahihi" in the language list. ;) |
| 17:53 | mchua | laughs |
| 17:54 | bjordan | yeah, that is a really funny one |
| 17:54 | marcopg | mchua: it might work... I'm wondering though, why it doesn't work much for activity maintainers itself |
| 17:54 | bjordan | is that in trac, actually? |
| 17:54 | mchua | looks at clock |
| 17:54 | gregdek | bjordan: I was waiting until I had a process document to follow. |
| 17:54 | Sorry mchua. :) | |
| 17:54 | marcopg | mchua: they have ownership of the activity, but most of them are not doing a great a work at it lately |
| 17:54 | gregdek | (And also, is there a speak component in trac?) |
| 17:54 | adricnet | I can add some RFE bugs to Speak in a hurry ;) |
| 17:54 | mchua | gregdek: thanks for making me start in on http://wiki.laptop.org/go/How_to_test_an_Activity |
| 17:55 | looks at the time | |
| 17:55 | gregdek | marcopg: Maybe if there were a dedicated QA tester on their ass, it would give them more incentive. ;) |
| 17:55 | marcopg | I'm trying to understand the reason |
| 17:55 | fhop | i can be really mean |
| 17:55 | marcopg | gregdek: that's actually very true |
| 17:55 | mchua | gregdek: the question becomes how we motivate the QA people, then ;) |
| 17:55 | fhop | i'm a teacher ;) |
| 17:55 | gregdek | marcopg: I think that a lot of Activity testers feel like no one is paying attention to what they do. |
| 17:55 | s/testers/writers/ | |
| 17:55 | Sorry | |
| 17:55 | marcopg | yup |
| 17:55 | gregdek | marcopg: I think that a lot of Activity *writers* feel like no one is paying attention to what they do. |
| 17:55 | So finding truly dedicated testers could create a virtuous circle. | |
| 17:56 | adricnet | might well be true. Lots of activities , and only some are popular |
| 17:56 | gregdek | Right. |
| 17:56 | No one wants to feel like no one cares about what they do. | |
| 17:56 | mchua | folks, I hate to say this, but we need to wrap up (time's a-tickin') |
| 17:56 | how can we channel this convo into email? | |
| 17:56 | do you want to continue the conversation and then summarize to list? | |
| 17:56 | cjl | CTRL-C, CTRL-V |
| 17:56 | mchua | I think a lot of *great* points have been brought up in the last *backscrolls* 10 minutes especially |
| 17:57 | gregdek | So lemme address my next point -- prioritization? |
| 17:57 | mchua | gregdek: email? time! ;) |
| 17:57 | gregdek: or next week's Big Discussion, if you like | |
| 17:57 | gregdek | OK. |
| 17:57 | :) | |
| 17:57 | mchua | gregdek: thanks |
| 17:58 | so here's what I think we can do | |
| 17:58 | bjordan | mchua: can you send out a Call for Emails email? :) |
| 17:58 | mchua | gregdek and bjordan can try out http://wiki.laptop.org/go/How_to_test_an_Activity out on Speak and Paint respectively, and complain loudly when things are missing, mchua to revise |
| 17:58 | bjordan: I will | |
| 17:58 | bjordan: probably in a few hours though | |
| 17:58 | * adricnet and mchua will dream up an interface for automated testing, trying to eliminate our need for drones | |
| 17:58 | adricnet | I'd enjoy jawing with someone about automated testing of at least browse using Mozilla tools. |
| 17:58 | mchua | adricnet: feel like tackling Browse then? ;) |
| 17:59 | adricnet | is always working itself out o a job. that's part of the point of working. |
| 17:59 | mchua | I will talk with sj, kimquirk, and others about what kinds of brib^H^H^H^H resources we can offer testers, for motivation |
| 17:59 | adricnet | mchua: Well there's enough room there for plenty of us. Dragons too. |
| 17:59 | fhop | mchua cookies |
| 17:59 | bjordan | hahah |
| 17:59 | fhop | and whippings |
| 18:00 | mchua | we'll look at the process / motivation-tools at next week's meeting, refine, and then try to recruit those Focusedly-ish Dedicated Peoples |
| 18:00 | bjordan | whipped creme cookies |
| 18:00 | fhop | (thats not so much incentive, but keeps 'em in line) |
| 18:00 | mchua | does that sound ok? |
| 18:00 | joef | beer and wine! |
| 18:00 | fhop | joef vodka! |
| 18:00 | joef | or ... Russian vodka! |
| 18:00 | cjl | gets Caribbean vacations for testing. . . |
| 18:00 | mchua | I'm going to take the excited comments about testing incentives as an "yes, that sounds ok" ;) |
| 18:01 | fhop | wishes cjl would take me in his suitcase |
| 18:01 | mchua | ok - I'll send out... lots of emails tonight about this, then, to set things up |
| 18:01 | is excited! | |
| 18:01 | meeting ending in a few... any last thoughts? | |
| 18:01 | 3 | |
| 18:01 | 2 | |
| 18:01 | 1 | |
| 18:01 | #endmeeting |