Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: QA and MozReps

Vuyisile Ndlovu
Hi Marcia

That's great news, I wasn't aware that the Mozcamp BETA would be
changed to something like this. Its unfortunate that the Reps don't
seem interested in this, as they have the skills to build communities,
but as Gabriela's example shows, one doesn't need to be a rep to grow
QA.

I'm currently unable to attend meetings via vidyo...is there a way I
can dial in instead? If not  i'll keep the wiki page bookmarked and
I'll go over the meeting notes whenever the Champions meet. I'd love
to hear what ideas everyone else has and how I can use those in my
region.

I live in Zimbabwe.

Thanks
On 08/07/2014, Marcia Knous <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Vuyisile - Thanks for your thoughts. We have had previous
> discussions with some Reps about the SIG. In some areas it has been
> difficult to get enough interest to have someone dedicated in this
> role.  I spent some time at the last Reps Council meeting trying to get
> some interest in having people help us with events in their area, for
> example.
>
> We already have a few people who I believe are functioning in this type
> role who are not official Reps - Gabriela Montagu from Mozilla Hispano
> is one person that comes to mind. So I don't believe someone has to
> necessarily be a Rep to function in this type of role - but if Reps want
> to help facilitate recruiting new volunteers and leading QA efforts in
> their regional areas this would be great.
>
> Also, I am not sure if you are aware but the recent "beta" MozCamp in
> India was about going to a different model of community building - one
> in which there would be more a "train the trainers" curriculum.  There
> are future "MozCamps" planned, and it is in my court to try to put
> together a curriculum that would help empower those in regional areas to
> lead QA efforts on their own (Testing events, Gatherings, Moz Coffees,
> etc). So there are already some efforts underway to try to get some
> better documentation for the community.
>
> I am not sure what time zone you are in, but feel free to join the QA
> Champions meeting this Friday - you can definitely share more of your
> thoughts at the meeting if you like and we can talk about this more -
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/community-champions-20140711. The Champions
> has point people from all the various parts of QA - Desktop, Web QA, FX
> OS, FF for Android - and the contribution paths and entry points are all
> a bit different depending on the functional area.
>
>
>
>> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> July 6, 2014 at 10:44 PM
>> Hi Clint,
>>
>> My apologies for responding to this late.
>>
>> The MozRep QA SIG is intended to be a program that empowers Reps with
>> tools/resources that they'd use to recruit more volunteers into QA.
>> Mozilla has great training for reps with regard to general community
>> building but I have strong reason to believe that QA is always
>> overlooked (or not given enough attention whenever we talk about
>> contribution opportunities).
>>
>> Members of the QA SIG would make it their responsibility as Reps to
>> focus their community building/recruitment efforts towards QA.
>>
>> There's a wiki page that describes the goals of said group here:
>>
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo/SIGs/QA
>>
>> I'll just summarise some of the points raised in that page: QA SIG duty:
>>
>> 1. Being online on IRC, ready to answer questions that new ones may
>> have concerning, setting up environments and getting started etc.
>>
>> 2. Responding to contribute requests in the mailing list.
>>
>> 3. Improve/localise QA Documentation
>>
>> 4. Host/facilitate testing themed events at schools/universities/tech
>> hubs to encourage contribution to QA efforts
>>
>> 5. Leverage and extend our reach internationally by increasing QA
>> presence in emerging markets such as Africa, Cuba, South America and
>> South East Asia.
>>
>> I'd really like to see this group coming to life. Concerning how best
>> you can help me, I'd like to know if this is something members of the
>> QA team would be willing to put aside some of their time towards. For
>> instance, if this group were to become active, we'd start to see lots
>> of new contributors and these would need to be mentored, trained and
>> assisted in any way.
>>
>> Secondly, there'll be need for documentation, explaining how team QA
>> goes about its job in testing the different applications made by
>> mozilla, how Reps should talk about QA, what QA is and what it's not
>> etc. For example, I've seen excellent slides
>> by Marcia
>> http://www.slideshare.net/mozillamarcia/mozilla-under-the-hood-1257014
>> and a presentation by David Burns
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtW8furwr0
>>
>> .Documentation like this would go a long way in providing information
>> that the reps could use in their communities.
>>
>> These are my thoughts
>>
>>
>> Clint Talbert <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> July 1, 2014 at 8:02 PM
>> Hi Vuyisile,
>>
>> I'm intrigued by one of the things you mentioned in your post on QMO,
>> so I'm starting a new thread about that specifically. You mentioned
>> that you're interested in getting the MozRep QA Special Interest Group
>> (SIG) started up. Can you say more about that group, and what you
>> imagine it will do and achieve? I'd like to know how we can best help
>> you.  I'll quote that part of your message below.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for responding to the QMO thread too, by the way.
>>
>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Clint
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> June 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM
>> Hi all
>>
>> I'm cross posting my feedback from the Community Building team mailing
>> list
>> in case it was missed.
>> My comments inline:
>>
>> 1. What is the primary purpose of QMO? Does the community see it as a
>> place
>> where they will be welcomed into the QA team's activities and find out
>> more
>> about them?
>>
>> I can attest to the usefulness of QMO. When I first started at
>> Mozilla, QMO was the first site I
>> was linked to and it had all the necessary info on how to get involved
>> and how to contact the relevant QA team. I've only worked with Web QA
>> and so my comments are based on WebQA related pages on QMO.
>>
>> The project pages have very clear and easy to follow instructions on
>> how to get started on manual or automated testing, with links to
>> project specific pages and github repos. Going through the entire text
>> of requirements, might be a bit of a bore, especially for a new
>> contributor who is just starting out in QA.
>>
>>
>> I believe QMO strives to be a one stop resource for new contributors,
>> giving them info on the different projects that they can contribute
>> to, how to get set up and how they can contact the respective QA
>> teams. I joined QA this way, I saw the site, looked up the webQA team
>> page and I was good to start.
>>> 2. What is the purpose of the team pages? Does the community see them as
>> a way to find out more about each team and initiate contact with team
>> members to see how they can get involved?
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/automation/
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/desktop-firefox/
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/web-qa/
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/thunderbird/
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/services/
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/mobile/
>>
>> On the WebQA team page, there's a link to the webqa irc channel and
>> mailing list.Everytime we receive a "request to contribute" email, its
>> usually after the person has gone through the team pages. So, I think
>> that team pages are important and should always have up to date info
>> about how the teams can be contacted. This should be noted concerning
>> links to IRC chat rooms: IRC may be new to some and they may find it
>> challenging to set up, so I think its always best to use a link to a
>> web based irc service like mibbit.
>>
>>
>>> 3. Should the "Docs" section be migrated to MDN or does it properly
>> belong to QMO?
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/
>>
>>
>> Docs should definitely be moved. Only the necessary documents should
>> be left over on QMO. In my experience, there were many times when I
>> read the docs, went into a redirection loop and ended up giving up. In
>> my opinion, only documents that will help the contributor get started
>> as easily as possible should remain. For example
>> https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/misc/how-can-i-help-test/
>>
>> The document is short, does not have many links and is easy to follow.
>> So documents regarding test case creation, bug writing guidelines,
>> security testing, checks vs tests etc should all be moved to MDN.
>>
>> Only docs that give information on how the potential contributor can
>> start should be left over.
>>> 4. Should the "Join Mozilla" link on QMO front page go to a listing of
>> job openings in the QA team?
>>
>>
>> To a new contributor, the purpose of the link might not be very clear.
>> It may give the impression that only mozilla staff can contribute to
>> the project. If I was a potential contributor who had just read
>> through the site and clicked on that link, I'd think that only staff
>> can contribute and that's not good. the link needs to be either
>> removed or rephrased e.g "Work for mozilla" or "Mozilla jobs",
>> "careers at mozilla"... or something along those lines.
>>
>> While I understand that QMO is specifically targetted at QA
>> contributors, I think there should be a link to mozilla.org/contribute
>> somewhere. My thinking behind this is that we're trying to get as many
>> contributors onboarded as possible, so if QA doesn't interest a
>> particular person, we can at least show them other opportunities at
>> mozilla that are open to them.
>>
>>> 5. What purpose does the "Community" tab serve? What would the community
>> like to see on this page?
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/community/
>>>
>>   My understanding of the community tab is that its meant to be a place
>> where individual contributors who have made a huge impact,
>> contributors who have helped push the QA objectives forward can get
>> recognition. Recognition is very Important,especially to volunteer
>> contributors who want to be appreciated for their work and who want to
>> feel that their contributions matter. To that end, I think it would be
>> a good idea to add contributor spotlight and keep it up to date with
>> information about contributions made by community testers.
>>
>> An example of how this can be done can be seen at the Reps site:
>> https://reps.mozilla.org/featured/
>>
>> If we as the QA team are serious about growing the QA contributor
>> base, we need better engagement with the community both online and
>> offine. Reports from QA events can be posted in the community tab and
>> this could include talks by QA engineers at universities, bug days,
>> training days etc. I'd like to see more engagement woth the
>> communitity here in this section.
>>
>> This is a little off topic but I'd like to see the  Mozilla Reps QA
>> SIG coming to life. The QA special interest group will task itself
>> with organising QA events, recruiting and mentoring contributors and
>> pictures, reports and blogs from such activities could go into the
>> community tab.
>>
>>> 6. Does the community see the following areas as having definite room
>>> for
>> improvement?
>>>    * The entire look and feel of QMO
>>
>> Like Aaron mentioned, the login feature is deprecated and should be
>> removed. It creates confusion because new contibutors think that they
>> *must* have an account on QMO in order to contribute,often leads to
>> them trying to sign up, failing to do so and then asking in the
>> mailing list/irc how they can create an account; which is something
>> that just takes them away from what they are supposed to be doing:
>> contributing!
>>   I also feel that this is functionality we don't need.
>>
>>>    * Viewing the site on mobile screens
>>
>> I use a mobile device as my primary device to connect to the Internet
>> and my experience with QMO on mobile has never been good so yes I
>> think the site needs to have a mobile friendly look.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 June 2014 02:34, Geo Mealer<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are notes
>>> from a couple back in 2012:
>>>
>>> March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
>>> July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
>>>
>>> Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for a
>>> QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but there
>>> are
>>> some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other
>>> discussions/notes
>>> from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
>>>
>>> Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in
>>> person,
>>> but echoing here.
>>>
>>> I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is
>>> good
>>> at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line with each
>>> other, and I agree with a large number of them.
>>>
>>> For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't
>>> really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at
>>> some
>>> stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important stuff?
>>> Without
>>> knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize giving it
>>> attention.
>>> I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the wayside a bit in general.
>>>
>>> So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
>>>
>>> First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to serve.
>>> This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or anything.
>>> Just, what should our website do within the next few months? Aggregate
>>> blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to our
>>> communication
>>> systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not Tetris). It won't be
>>> everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or 10 that we can agree are
>>> the most important things we need.
>>>
>>> Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a
>>> completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed
>>> purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those
>>> purposes ideally, then build that.
>>>
>>> And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes
>>> we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the site.
>>> Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat" but maybe
>>> not
>>> important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both implementing and
>>> for
>>> our audience--is time not spent on something we care more about.
>>>
>>> If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want
>>> to
>>> keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements re:
>>> who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak the
>>> design
>>> for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to focus on those
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>> That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more
>>> clearly
>>> judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
>>>
>>> Geo
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Parul Mathur"<[hidden email]>
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:13:57 AM
>>>> Subject: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)
>>>>
>>>> Hi community members,
>>>>
>>>> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding
>>>> its
>>>> website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
>>>>
>>>> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations
>>> met?
>>>> 2. What does QMO do well?
>>>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>>>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
>>>>
>>>> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
>>>>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001614.html
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001637.html
>>>> We'd love to have your feedback too!
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Parul
>>>> (Mozilla Community Member)
>>>> IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Geo Mealer <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> June 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM
>> We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are
>> notes from a couple back in 2012:
>>
>> March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
>> July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
>>
>> Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for
>> a QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but
>> there are some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other
>> discussions/notes from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
>>
>> Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in
>> person, but echoing here.
>>
>> I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is
>> good at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line
>> with each other, and I agree with a large number of them.
>>
>> For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't
>> really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at
>> some stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important
>> stuff? Without knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize
>> giving it attention. I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the
>> wayside a bit in general.
>>
>> So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
>>
>> First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to
>> serve. This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or
>> anything. Just, what should our website do within the next few months?
>> Aggregate blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to
>> our communication systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not
>> Tetris). It won't be everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or
>> 10 that we can agree are the most important things we need.
>>
>> Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a
>> completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed
>> purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those
>> purposes ideally, then build that.
>>
>> And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes
>> we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the
>> site. Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat"
>> but maybe not important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both
>> implementing and for our audience--is time not spent on something we
>> care more about.
>>
>> If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want
>> to keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements
>> re: who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak
>> the design for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to
>> focus on those purposes.
>>
>> That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more
>> clearly judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
>>
>> Geo
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>> Parul Mathur <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> June 18, 2014 at 2:13 PM
>> Hi community members,
>>
>> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding
>> its website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
>>
>> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations
>> met?
>> 2. What does QMO do well?
>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
>>
>> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001614.html
>>
>>
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001637.html
>>
>>
>>
>> We'd love to have your feedback too!
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Parul
>> (Mozilla Community Member)
>> IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-quality mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>


--
Regards

Vuyisile Ndlovu

In God we trust, in everything else, we test....and test again!
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: QA and MozReps

Clint Talbert-3
I'm not entirely certain how it would work from Zimbabwe, but I have
been able to use skype to dial into our calls from other international
locations before.

Here's how that worked:
Dial: 1-800-707-2533
PIN 369
And then the conference room number for the specific meeting. Every
vidyo room has a conference number associated with it - to figure out
what it is prepend 9 to whatever "number" you see in vidyo associated
with the room. That will be something that the person organizing the
meeting will have to advertise on their meeting invitation.

Cheers,
Clint
On 7/10/2014 12:14, Vuyisile Ndlovu wrote:

> Hi Marcia
>
> That's great news, I wasn't aware that the Mozcamp BETA would be
> changed to something like this. Its unfortunate that the Reps don't
> seem interested in this, as they have the skills to build communities,
> but as Gabriela's example shows, one doesn't need to be a rep to grow
> QA.
>
> I'm currently unable to attend meetings via vidyo...is there a way I
> can dial in instead? If not  i'll keep the wiki page bookmarked and
> I'll go over the meeting notes whenever the Champions meet. I'd love
> to hear what ideas everyone else has and how I can use those in my
> region.
>
> I live in Zimbabwe.
>
> Thanks
> On 08/07/2014, Marcia Knous <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello Vuyisile - Thanks for your thoughts. We have had previous
>> discussions with some Reps about the SIG. In some areas it has been
>> difficult to get enough interest to have someone dedicated in this
>> role.  I spent some time at the last Reps Council meeting trying to get
>> some interest in having people help us with events in their area, for
>> example.
>>
>> We already have a few people who I believe are functioning in this type
>> role who are not official Reps - Gabriela Montagu from Mozilla Hispano
>> is one person that comes to mind. So I don't believe someone has to
>> necessarily be a Rep to function in this type of role - but if Reps want
>> to help facilitate recruiting new volunteers and leading QA efforts in
>> their regional areas this would be great.
>>
>> Also, I am not sure if you are aware but the recent "beta" MozCamp in
>> India was about going to a different model of community building - one
>> in which there would be more a "train the trainers" curriculum.  There
>> are future "MozCamps" planned, and it is in my court to try to put
>> together a curriculum that would help empower those in regional areas to
>> lead QA efforts on their own (Testing events, Gatherings, Moz Coffees,
>> etc). So there are already some efforts underway to try to get some
>> better documentation for the community.
>>
>> I am not sure what time zone you are in, but feel free to join the QA
>> Champions meeting this Friday - you can definitely share more of your
>> thoughts at the meeting if you like and we can talk about this more -
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/community-champions-20140711. The Champions
>> has point people from all the various parts of QA - Desktop, Web QA, FX
>> OS, FF for Android - and the contribution paths and entry points are all
>> a bit different depending on the functional area.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> July 6, 2014 at 10:44 PM
>>> Hi Clint,
>>>
>>> My apologies for responding to this late.
>>>
>>> The MozRep QA SIG is intended to be a program that empowers Reps with
>>> tools/resources that they'd use to recruit more volunteers into QA.
>>> Mozilla has great training for reps with regard to general community
>>> building but I have strong reason to believe that QA is always
>>> overlooked (or not given enough attention whenever we talk about
>>> contribution opportunities).
>>>
>>> Members of the QA SIG would make it their responsibility as Reps to
>>> focus their community building/recruitment efforts towards QA.
>>>
>>> There's a wiki page that describes the goals of said group here:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo/SIGs/QA
>>>
>>> I'll just summarise some of the points raised in that page: QA SIG duty:
>>>
>>> 1. Being online on IRC, ready to answer questions that new ones may
>>> have concerning, setting up environments and getting started etc.
>>>
>>> 2. Responding to contribute requests in the mailing list.
>>>
>>> 3. Improve/localise QA Documentation
>>>
>>> 4. Host/facilitate testing themed events at schools/universities/tech
>>> hubs to encourage contribution to QA efforts
>>>
>>> 5. Leverage and extend our reach internationally by increasing QA
>>> presence in emerging markets such as Africa, Cuba, South America and
>>> South East Asia.
>>>
>>> I'd really like to see this group coming to life. Concerning how best
>>> you can help me, I'd like to know if this is something members of the
>>> QA team would be willing to put aside some of their time towards. For
>>> instance, if this group were to become active, we'd start to see lots
>>> of new contributors and these would need to be mentored, trained and
>>> assisted in any way.
>>>
>>> Secondly, there'll be need for documentation, explaining how team QA
>>> goes about its job in testing the different applications made by
>>> mozilla, how Reps should talk about QA, what QA is and what it's not
>>> etc. For example, I've seen excellent slides
>>> by Marcia
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/mozillamarcia/mozilla-under-the-hood-1257014
>>> and a presentation by David Burns
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtW8furwr0
>>>
>>> .Documentation like this would go a long way in providing information
>>> that the reps could use in their communities.
>>>
>>> These are my thoughts
>>>
>>>
>>> Clint Talbert <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> July 1, 2014 at 8:02 PM
>>> Hi Vuyisile,
>>>
>>> I'm intrigued by one of the things you mentioned in your post on QMO,
>>> so I'm starting a new thread about that specifically. You mentioned
>>> that you're interested in getting the MozRep QA Special Interest Group
>>> (SIG) started up. Can you say more about that group, and what you
>>> imagine it will do and achieve? I'd like to know how we can best help
>>> you.  I'll quote that part of your message below.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for responding to the QMO thread too, by the way.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Clint
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> June 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I'm cross posting my feedback from the Community Building team mailing
>>> list
>>> in case it was missed.
>>> My comments inline:
>>>
>>> 1. What is the primary purpose of QMO? Does the community see it as a
>>> place
>>> where they will be welcomed into the QA team's activities and find out
>>> more
>>> about them?
>>>
>>> I can attest to the usefulness of QMO. When I first started at
>>> Mozilla, QMO was the first site I
>>> was linked to and it had all the necessary info on how to get involved
>>> and how to contact the relevant QA team. I've only worked with Web QA
>>> and so my comments are based on WebQA related pages on QMO.
>>>
>>> The project pages have very clear and easy to follow instructions on
>>> how to get started on manual or automated testing, with links to
>>> project specific pages and github repos. Going through the entire text
>>> of requirements, might be a bit of a bore, especially for a new
>>> contributor who is just starting out in QA.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe QMO strives to be a one stop resource for new contributors,
>>> giving them info on the different projects that they can contribute
>>> to, how to get set up and how they can contact the respective QA
>>> teams. I joined QA this way, I saw the site, looked up the webQA team
>>> page and I was good to start.
>>>> 2. What is the purpose of the team pages? Does the community see them as
>>> a way to find out more about each team and initiate contact with team
>>> members to see how they can get involved?
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/automation/
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/desktop-firefox/
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/web-qa/
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/thunderbird/
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/services/
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/mobile/
>>> On the WebQA team page, there's a link to the webqa irc channel and
>>> mailing list.Everytime we receive a "request to contribute" email, its
>>> usually after the person has gone through the team pages. So, I think
>>> that team pages are important and should always have up to date info
>>> about how the teams can be contacted. This should be noted concerning
>>> links to IRC chat rooms: IRC may be new to some and they may find it
>>> challenging to set up, so I think its always best to use a link to a
>>> web based irc service like mibbit.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3. Should the "Docs" section be migrated to MDN or does it properly
>>> belong to QMO?
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/
>>>
>>> Docs should definitely be moved. Only the necessary documents should
>>> be left over on QMO. In my experience, there were many times when I
>>> read the docs, went into a redirection loop and ended up giving up. In
>>> my opinion, only documents that will help the contributor get started
>>> as easily as possible should remain. For example
>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/misc/how-can-i-help-test/
>>>
>>> The document is short, does not have many links and is easy to follow.
>>> So documents regarding test case creation, bug writing guidelines,
>>> security testing, checks vs tests etc should all be moved to MDN.
>>>
>>> Only docs that give information on how the potential contributor can
>>> start should be left over.
>>>> 4. Should the "Join Mozilla" link on QMO front page go to a listing of
>>> job openings in the QA team?
>>>
>>>
>>> To a new contributor, the purpose of the link might not be very clear.
>>> It may give the impression that only mozilla staff can contribute to
>>> the project. If I was a potential contributor who had just read
>>> through the site and clicked on that link, I'd think that only staff
>>> can contribute and that's not good. the link needs to be either
>>> removed or rephrased e.g "Work for mozilla" or "Mozilla jobs",
>>> "careers at mozilla"... or something along those lines.
>>>
>>> While I understand that QMO is specifically targetted at QA
>>> contributors, I think there should be a link to mozilla.org/contribute
>>> somewhere. My thinking behind this is that we're trying to get as many
>>> contributors onboarded as possible, so if QA doesn't interest a
>>> particular person, we can at least show them other opportunities at
>>> mozilla that are open to them.
>>>
>>>> 5. What purpose does the "Community" tab serve? What would the community
>>> like to see on this page?
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/community/
>>>>
>>>    My understanding of the community tab is that its meant to be a place
>>> where individual contributors who have made a huge impact,
>>> contributors who have helped push the QA objectives forward can get
>>> recognition. Recognition is very Important,especially to volunteer
>>> contributors who want to be appreciated for their work and who want to
>>> feel that their contributions matter. To that end, I think it would be
>>> a good idea to add contributor spotlight and keep it up to date with
>>> information about contributions made by community testers.
>>>
>>> An example of how this can be done can be seen at the Reps site:
>>> https://reps.mozilla.org/featured/
>>>
>>> If we as the QA team are serious about growing the QA contributor
>>> base, we need better engagement with the community both online and
>>> offine. Reports from QA events can be posted in the community tab and
>>> this could include talks by QA engineers at universities, bug days,
>>> training days etc. I'd like to see more engagement woth the
>>> communitity here in this section.
>>>
>>> This is a little off topic but I'd like to see the  Mozilla Reps QA
>>> SIG coming to life. The QA special interest group will task itself
>>> with organising QA events, recruiting and mentoring contributors and
>>> pictures, reports and blogs from such activities could go into the
>>> community tab.
>>>
>>>> 6. Does the community see the following areas as having definite room
>>>> for
>>> improvement?
>>>>     * The entire look and feel of QMO
>>> Like Aaron mentioned, the login feature is deprecated and should be
>>> removed. It creates confusion because new contibutors think that they
>>> *must* have an account on QMO in order to contribute,often leads to
>>> them trying to sign up, failing to do so and then asking in the
>>> mailing list/irc how they can create an account; which is something
>>> that just takes them away from what they are supposed to be doing:
>>> contributing!
>>>    I also feel that this is functionality we don't need.
>>>
>>>>     * Viewing the site on mobile screens
>>> I use a mobile device as my primary device to connect to the Internet
>>> and my experience with QMO on mobile has never been good so yes I
>>> think the site needs to have a mobile friendly look.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 June 2014 02:34, Geo Mealer<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are notes
>>>> from a couple back in 2012:
>>>>
>>>> March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
>>>> July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
>>>>
>>>> Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for a
>>>> QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but there
>>>> are
>>>> some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other
>>>> discussions/notes
>>>> from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
>>>>
>>>> Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in
>>>> person,
>>>> but echoing here.
>>>>
>>>> I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is
>>>> good
>>>> at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line with each
>>>> other, and I agree with a large number of them.
>>>>
>>>> For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't
>>>> really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at
>>>> some
>>>> stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important stuff?
>>>> Without
>>>> knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize giving it
>>>> attention.
>>>> I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the wayside a bit in general.
>>>>
>>>> So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
>>>>
>>>> First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to serve.
>>>> This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or anything.
>>>> Just, what should our website do within the next few months? Aggregate
>>>> blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to our
>>>> communication
>>>> systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not Tetris). It won't be
>>>> everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or 10 that we can agree are
>>>> the most important things we need.
>>>>
>>>> Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a
>>>> completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed
>>>> purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those
>>>> purposes ideally, then build that.
>>>>
>>>> And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes
>>>> we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the site.
>>>> Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat" but maybe
>>>> not
>>>> important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both implementing and
>>>> for
>>>> our audience--is time not spent on something we care more about.
>>>>
>>>> If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want
>>>> to
>>>> keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements re:
>>>> who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak the
>>>> design
>>>> for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to focus on those
>>>> purposes.
>>>>
>>>> That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more
>>>> clearly
>>>> judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
>>>>
>>>> Geo
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Parul Mathur"<[hidden email]>
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:13:57 AM
>>>>> Subject: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi community members,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding
>>>>> its
>>>>> website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations
>>>> met?
>>>>> 2. What does QMO do well?
>>>>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>>>>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
>>>>>
>>>>> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
>>>>>
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001614.html
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001637.html
>>>>> We'd love to have your feedback too!
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Parul
>>>>> (Mozilla Community Member)
>>>>> IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Geo Mealer <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> June 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM
>>> We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are
>>> notes from a couple back in 2012:
>>>
>>> March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
>>> July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
>>>
>>> Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for
>>> a QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but
>>> there are some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other
>>> discussions/notes from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
>>>
>>> Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in
>>> person, but echoing here.
>>>
>>> I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is
>>> good at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line
>>> with each other, and I agree with a large number of them.
>>>
>>> For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't
>>> really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at
>>> some stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important
>>> stuff? Without knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize
>>> giving it attention. I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the
>>> wayside a bit in general.
>>>
>>> So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
>>>
>>> First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to
>>> serve. This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or
>>> anything. Just, what should our website do within the next few months?
>>> Aggregate blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to
>>> our communication systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not
>>> Tetris). It won't be everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or
>>> 10 that we can agree are the most important things we need.
>>>
>>> Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a
>>> completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed
>>> purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those
>>> purposes ideally, then build that.
>>>
>>> And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes
>>> we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the
>>> site. Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat"
>>> but maybe not important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both
>>> implementing and for our audience--is time not spent on something we
>>> care more about.
>>>
>>> If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want
>>> to keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements
>>> re: who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak
>>> the design for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to
>>> focus on those purposes.
>>>
>>> That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more
>>> clearly judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
>>>
>>> Geo
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>> Parul Mathur <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> June 18, 2014 at 2:13 PM
>>> Hi community members,
>>>
>>> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding
>>> its website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
>>>
>>> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations
>>> met?
>>> 2. What does QMO do well?
>>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
>>>
>>> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001614.html
>>>
>>>
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001637.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We'd love to have your feedback too!
>>>
>>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Parul
>>> (Mozilla Community Member)
>>> IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: QA and MozReps

Vuyisile Ndlovu
Thanks for the update Clint. This info is really helpfull. I'll do my
best to attend the next meeting

On 15/07/2014, Clint Talbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm not entirely certain how it would work from Zimbabwe, but I have
> been able to use skype to dial into our calls from other international
> locations before.
>
> Here's how that worked:
> Dial: 1-800-707-2533
> PIN 369
> And then the conference room number for the specific meeting. Every
> vidyo room has a conference number associated with it - to figure out
> what it is prepend 9 to whatever "number" you see in vidyo associated
> with the room. That will be something that the person organizing the
> meeting will have to advertise on their meeting invitation.
>
> Cheers,
> Clint
> On 7/10/2014 12:14, Vuyisile Ndlovu wrote:
>> Hi Marcia
>>
>> That's great news, I wasn't aware that the Mozcamp BETA would be
>> changed to something like this. Its unfortunate that the Reps don't
>> seem interested in this, as they have the skills to build communities,
>> but as Gabriela's example shows, one doesn't need to be a rep to grow
>> QA.
>>
>> I'm currently unable to attend meetings via vidyo...is there a way I
>> can dial in instead? If not  i'll keep the wiki page bookmarked and
>> I'll go over the meeting notes whenever the Champions meet. I'd love
>> to hear what ideas everyone else has and how I can use those in my
>> region.
>>
>> I live in Zimbabwe.
>>
>> Thanks
>> On 08/07/2014, Marcia Knous <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hello Vuyisile - Thanks for your thoughts. We have had previous
>>> discussions with some Reps about the SIG. In some areas it has been
>>> difficult to get enough interest to have someone dedicated in this
>>> role.  I spent some time at the last Reps Council meeting trying to get
>>> some interest in having people help us with events in their area, for
>>> example.
>>>
>>> We already have a few people who I believe are functioning in this type
>>> role who are not official Reps - Gabriela Montagu from Mozilla Hispano
>>> is one person that comes to mind. So I don't believe someone has to
>>> necessarily be a Rep to function in this type of role - but if Reps want
>>> to help facilitate recruiting new volunteers and leading QA efforts in
>>> their regional areas this would be great.
>>>
>>> Also, I am not sure if you are aware but the recent "beta" MozCamp in
>>> India was about going to a different model of community building - one
>>> in which there would be more a "train the trainers" curriculum.  There
>>> are future "MozCamps" planned, and it is in my court to try to put
>>> together a curriculum that would help empower those in regional areas to
>>> lead QA efforts on their own (Testing events, Gatherings, Moz Coffees,
>>> etc). So there are already some efforts underway to try to get some
>>> better documentation for the community.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what time zone you are in, but feel free to join the QA
>>> Champions meeting this Friday - you can definitely share more of your
>>> thoughts at the meeting if you like and we can talk about this more -
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/community-champions-20140711. The Champions
>>> has point people from all the various parts of QA - Desktop, Web QA, FX
>>> OS, FF for Android - and the contribution paths and entry points are all
>>> a bit different depending on the functional area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> July 6, 2014 at 10:44 PM
>>>> Hi Clint,
>>>>
>>>> My apologies for responding to this late.
>>>>
>>>> The MozRep QA SIG is intended to be a program that empowers Reps with
>>>> tools/resources that they'd use to recruit more volunteers into QA.
>>>> Mozilla has great training for reps with regard to general community
>>>> building but I have strong reason to believe that QA is always
>>>> overlooked (or not given enough attention whenever we talk about
>>>> contribution opportunities).
>>>>
>>>> Members of the QA SIG would make it their responsibility as Reps to
>>>> focus their community building/recruitment efforts towards QA.
>>>>
>>>> There's a wiki page that describes the goals of said group here:
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReMo/SIGs/QA
>>>>
>>>> I'll just summarise some of the points raised in that page: QA SIG
>>>> duty:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Being online on IRC, ready to answer questions that new ones may
>>>> have concerning, setting up environments and getting started etc.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Responding to contribute requests in the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Improve/localise QA Documentation
>>>>
>>>> 4. Host/facilitate testing themed events at schools/universities/tech
>>>> hubs to encourage contribution to QA efforts
>>>>
>>>> 5. Leverage and extend our reach internationally by increasing QA
>>>> presence in emerging markets such as Africa, Cuba, South America and
>>>> South East Asia.
>>>>
>>>> I'd really like to see this group coming to life. Concerning how best
>>>> you can help me, I'd like to know if this is something members of the
>>>> QA team would be willing to put aside some of their time towards. For
>>>> instance, if this group were to become active, we'd start to see lots
>>>> of new contributors and these would need to be mentored, trained and
>>>> assisted in any way.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, there'll be need for documentation, explaining how team QA
>>>> goes about its job in testing the different applications made by
>>>> mozilla, how Reps should talk about QA, what QA is and what it's not
>>>> etc. For example, I've seen excellent slides
>>>> by Marcia
>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/mozillamarcia/mozilla-under-the-hood-1257014
>>>> and a presentation by David Burns
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAtW8furwr0
>>>>
>>>> .Documentation like this would go a long way in providing information
>>>> that the reps could use in their communities.
>>>>
>>>> These are my thoughts
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clint Talbert <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> July 1, 2014 at 8:02 PM
>>>> Hi Vuyisile,
>>>>
>>>> I'm intrigued by one of the things you mentioned in your post on QMO,
>>>> so I'm starting a new thread about that specifically. You mentioned
>>>> that you're interested in getting the MozRep QA Special Interest Group
>>>> (SIG) started up. Can you say more about that group, and what you
>>>> imagine it will do and achieve? I'd like to know how we can best help
>>>> you.  I'll quote that part of your message below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for responding to the QMO thread too, by the way.
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Clint
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>> Vuyisile Ndlovu <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> June 26, 2014 at 5:22 AM
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> I'm cross posting my feedback from the Community Building team mailing
>>>> list
>>>> in case it was missed.
>>>> My comments inline:
>>>>
>>>> 1. What is the primary purpose of QMO? Does the community see it as a
>>>> place
>>>> where they will be welcomed into the QA team's activities and find out
>>>> more
>>>> about them?
>>>>
>>>> I can attest to the usefulness of QMO. When I first started at
>>>> Mozilla, QMO was the first site I
>>>> was linked to and it had all the necessary info on how to get involved
>>>> and how to contact the relevant QA team. I've only worked with Web QA
>>>> and so my comments are based on WebQA related pages on QMO.
>>>>
>>>> The project pages have very clear and easy to follow instructions on
>>>> how to get started on manual or automated testing, with links to
>>>> project specific pages and github repos. Going through the entire text
>>>> of requirements, might be a bit of a bore, especially for a new
>>>> contributor who is just starting out in QA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe QMO strives to be a one stop resource for new contributors,
>>>> giving them info on the different projects that they can contribute
>>>> to, how to get set up and how they can contact the respective QA
>>>> teams. I joined QA this way, I saw the site, looked up the webQA team
>>>> page and I was good to start.
>>>>> 2. What is the purpose of the team pages? Does the community see them
>>>>> as
>>>> a way to find out more about each team and initiate contact with team
>>>> members to see how they can get involved?
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/automation/
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/desktop-firefox/
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/web-qa/
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/thunderbird/
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/services/
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/teams/mobile/
>>>> On the WebQA team page, there's a link to the webqa irc channel and
>>>> mailing list.Everytime we receive a "request to contribute" email, its
>>>> usually after the person has gone through the team pages. So, I think
>>>> that team pages are important and should always have up to date info
>>>> about how the teams can be contacted. This should be noted concerning
>>>> links to IRC chat rooms: IRC may be new to some and they may find it
>>>> challenging to set up, so I think its always best to use a link to a
>>>> web based irc service like mibbit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Should the "Docs" section be migrated to MDN or does it properly
>>>> belong to QMO?
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/
>>>>
>>>> Docs should definitely be moved. Only the necessary documents should
>>>> be left over on QMO. In my experience, there were many times when I
>>>> read the docs, went into a redirection loop and ended up giving up. In
>>>> my opinion, only documents that will help the contributor get started
>>>> as easily as possible should remain. For example
>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/docs/misc/how-can-i-help-test/
>>>>
>>>> The document is short, does not have many links and is easy to follow.
>>>> So documents regarding test case creation, bug writing guidelines,
>>>> security testing, checks vs tests etc should all be moved to MDN.
>>>>
>>>> Only docs that give information on how the potential contributor can
>>>> start should be left over.
>>>>> 4. Should the "Join Mozilla" link on QMO front page go to a listing of
>>>> job openings in the QA team?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To a new contributor, the purpose of the link might not be very clear.
>>>> It may give the impression that only mozilla staff can contribute to
>>>> the project. If I was a potential contributor who had just read
>>>> through the site and clicked on that link, I'd think that only staff
>>>> can contribute and that's not good. the link needs to be either
>>>> removed or rephrased e.g "Work for mozilla" or "Mozilla jobs",
>>>> "careers at mozilla"... or something along those lines.
>>>>
>>>> While I understand that QMO is specifically targetted at QA
>>>> contributors, I think there should be a link to mozilla.org/contribute
>>>> somewhere. My thinking behind this is that we're trying to get as many
>>>> contributors onboarded as possible, so if QA doesn't interest a
>>>> particular person, we can at least show them other opportunities at
>>>> mozilla that are open to them.
>>>>
>>>>> 5. What purpose does the "Community" tab serve? What would the
>>>>> community
>>>> like to see on this page?
>>>>> https://quality.mozilla.org/community/
>>>>>
>>>>    My understanding of the community tab is that its meant to be a
>>>> place
>>>> where individual contributors who have made a huge impact,
>>>> contributors who have helped push the QA objectives forward can get
>>>> recognition. Recognition is very Important,especially to volunteer
>>>> contributors who want to be appreciated for their work and who want to
>>>> feel that their contributions matter. To that end, I think it would be
>>>> a good idea to add contributor spotlight and keep it up to date with
>>>> information about contributions made by community testers.
>>>>
>>>> An example of how this can be done can be seen at the Reps site:
>>>> https://reps.mozilla.org/featured/
>>>>
>>>> If we as the QA team are serious about growing the QA contributor
>>>> base, we need better engagement with the community both online and
>>>> offine. Reports from QA events can be posted in the community tab and
>>>> this could include talks by QA engineers at universities, bug days,
>>>> training days etc. I'd like to see more engagement woth the
>>>> communitity here in this section.
>>>>
>>>> This is a little off topic but I'd like to see the  Mozilla Reps QA
>>>> SIG coming to life. The QA special interest group will task itself
>>>> with organising QA events, recruiting and mentoring contributors and
>>>> pictures, reports and blogs from such activities could go into the
>>>> community tab.
>>>>
>>>>> 6. Does the community see the following areas as having definite room
>>>>> for
>>>> improvement?
>>>>>     * The entire look and feel of QMO
>>>> Like Aaron mentioned, the login feature is deprecated and should be
>>>> removed. It creates confusion because new contibutors think that they
>>>> *must* have an account on QMO in order to contribute,often leads to
>>>> them trying to sign up, failing to do so and then asking in the
>>>> mailing list/irc how they can create an account; which is something
>>>> that just takes them away from what they are supposed to be doing:
>>>> contributing!
>>>>    I also feel that this is functionality we don't need.
>>>>
>>>>>     * Viewing the site on mobile screens
>>>> I use a mobile device as my primary device to connect to the Internet
>>>> and my experience with QMO on mobile has never been good so yes I
>>>> think the site needs to have a mobile friendly look.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 June 2014 02:34, Geo Mealer<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are
>>>>> notes
>>>>> from a couple back in 2012:
>>>>>
>>>>> March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
>>>>> July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for
>>>>> a
>>>>> QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but there
>>>>> are
>>>>> some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other
>>>>> discussions/notes
>>>>> from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in
>>>>> person,
>>>>> but echoing here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is
>>>>> good
>>>>> at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line with
>>>>> each
>>>>> other, and I agree with a large number of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't
>>>>> really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at
>>>>> some
>>>>> stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important stuff?
>>>>> Without
>>>>> knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize giving it
>>>>> attention.
>>>>> I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the wayside a bit in
>>>>> general.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
>>>>>
>>>>> First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to
>>>>> serve.
>>>>> This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or anything.
>>>>> Just, what should our website do within the next few months? Aggregate
>>>>> blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to our
>>>>> communication
>>>>> systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not Tetris). It won't be
>>>>> everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or 10 that we can agree
>>>>> are
>>>>> the most important things we need.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a
>>>>> completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed
>>>>> purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those
>>>>> purposes ideally, then build that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes
>>>>> we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the
>>>>> site.
>>>>> Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat" but
>>>>> maybe
>>>>> not
>>>>> important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both implementing and
>>>>> for
>>>>> our audience--is time not spent on something we care more about.
>>>>>
>>>>> If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want
>>>>> to
>>>>> keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements
>>>>> re:
>>>>> who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak the
>>>>> design
>>>>> for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to focus on those
>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more
>>>>> clearly
>>>>> judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Geo
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Parul Mathur"<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:13:57 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi community members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your
>>>>>> expectations
>>>>> met?
>>>>>> 2. What does QMO do well?
>>>>>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>>>>>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001614.html
>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001637.html
>>>>>> We'd love to have your feedback too!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Parul
>>>>>> (Mozilla Community Member)
>>>>>> IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Geo Mealer <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> June 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM
>>>> We've had a number of discussions on this over the years. Here are
>>>> notes from a couple back in 2012:
>>>>
>>>> March 15, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/QMO-Evolution
>>>> July 17, 2012, https://etherpad.mozilla.org/qmo-redesign
>>>>
>>>> Obviously these are pretty out of date (for example, I'm stumping for
>>>> a QMO-based web board on them to use instead of dev-quality!) but
>>>> there are some good thoughts. Others may still have links to other
>>>> discussions/notes from back then. We certainly talked about QMO a lot.
>>>>
>>>> Re: thoughts, this repeats a bit of what Parul and I discussed in
>>>> person, but echoing here.
>>>>
>>>> I think a lot of thoughts in this thread are bang on re: what QMO is
>>>> good at, bad at, how it could be rearranged, etc. Most are in line
>>>> with each other, and I agree with a large number of them.
>>>>
>>>> For all my opinions of the same types of things, though, what I don't
>>>> really have a sense of right now is how valuable QMO is. It's good at
>>>> some stuff, but is it important stuff? Is it the *most* important
>>>> stuff? Without knowing the value of the site, it's hard to prioritize
>>>> giving it attention. I suspect that might be why it's fallen by the
>>>> wayside a bit in general.
>>>>
>>>> So I think we should separate the concepts of purpose vs. execution:
>>>>
>>>> First, we need a list of the N most important purposes for QMO to
>>>> serve. This should be purely objective, not based on current QMO or
>>>> anything. Just, what should our website do within the next few months?
>>>> Aggregate blogs? Educate testers about testing? Introduce people to
>>>> our communication systems? Play Tetris? (spoilers, probably not
>>>> Tetris). It won't be everything it could do, maybe just the top 5 or
>>>> 10 that we can agree are the most important things we need.
>>>>
>>>> Second, we should execute a site that serves those N purposes in a
>>>> completely focused manner. We should design review against the listed
>>>> purposes, come to an agreement that the proposed design executes those
>>>> purposes ideally, then build that.
>>>>
>>>> And if part of the design is not directly serving one of the purposes
>>>> we've explicitly decided we're tackling, it shouldn't go into the
>>>> site. Otherwise we might collect features that are "easy" or "neat"
>>>> but maybe not important. Any time spent on unimportant stuff--both
>>>> implementing and for our audience--is time not spent on something we
>>>> care more about.
>>>>
>>>> If, given that design, it turns out we can reuse current code, or want
>>>> to keep WordPress, great. Maybe once we add in resourcing requirements
>>>> re: who/how much time it takes to maintain we end up having to tweak
>>>> the design for more reuse. But ultimately every decision needs to
>>>> focus on those purposes.
>>>>
>>>> That gets us towards a fully intentional design, which we can more
>>>> clearly judge for "is it or isn't it valuable?"
>>>>
>>>> Geo
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>>> Parul Mathur <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> June 18, 2014 at 2:13 PM
>>>> Hi community members,
>>>>
>>>> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding
>>>> its website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO).
>>>>
>>>> 1. What do you expect to see when you go to QMO? Are your expectations
>>>> met?
>>>> 2. What does QMO do well?
>>>> 3. What can QMO do better?
>>>> 4. What is completely missing from QMO but should be there?
>>>>
>>>> We got some feedback on the Community Building mailing list:
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001614.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/community-building/2014-June/001637.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'd love to have your feedback too!
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Parul
>>>> (Mozilla Community Member)
>>>> IRC nick pragmatic on #qa
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dev-quality mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
>>
>
>


--
Regards

Vuyisile Ndlovu

In God we trust, in everything else, we test....and test again!
_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)

Parul Mathur
In reply to this post by Vuyisile Ndlovu
I would like to share feedback from Craig Cook, the person who is
responsible for supporting QMO's infrastructure.

On 6/20/14 2:33 PM, Parul Mathur wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> The Mozilla Quality Assurance team is looking for feedback regarding its
> website http://quality.mozilla.org (QMO). As the person responsible for
> maintaining its infrastructure, I would be interested in hearing your
> thoughts on where you see room for improvement.
>
> 1. Going back all the way since you first started with QMO, what have
> been your biggest headaches with maintaining QMO's infrastructure? What
> about software security?

QMO is running on WordPress, an open source, PHP-based blogging
platform. It's very popular and very good at blogging, but it isn't a
full-featured, robust CMS for managing non-blog content (I'm defining
'blog' as an ongoing series of regular updates, published chronologically).

WordPress does support simple static pages (each a standalone, non-dated
page as opposed to a dated blog post) so we used those static pages for
the QA docs, but it's not really an ideal system. Organizing and
maintaining a large number of hierarchical pages in WP is kind of a
pain. That simply isn't what WP was designed for.

There were a number of functional requirements that WP doesn't provide
out of the box, so we turned to third party plugins. For example, WP
doesn't offer any kind of event management, so we're using a plugin
called The Events Calendar. WP can't syndicate content from external
websites, so we're using a plugin called FeedWordPress to fetch RSS
feeds and generate the Community page. We're using a plugin to generate
the breadcrumbs on doc pages, another plugin to display recently updated
docs in the sidebar, and so on. All things people wanted the site to do
but that WP doesn't provide without extra code.

QMO currently has 15 active plugins, though that number was even higher
not so long ago. For a while QMO was using BuddyPress, a very elaborate
plugin that turns a WordPress blog into a sort of social networking
site. It's basically a platform on top of a platform, but it was really
complicated and hard to use and prone to spam. In the end we barely used
any of the functionality BuddyPress promised and finally just removed
it, which made QMO much easier to maintain. Even then, keeping a large
number of plugins up to date can be tedious.

We deliberately didn't automate plugin updates because BuddyPress was so
fragile that we needed to test every new update to make sure it wouldn't
break the entire site. Even without BuddyPress, we're still not
automating plugin updates and tend to fall behind quickly. We're also
stuck on a very outdated copy of The Events Calendar because the plugin
authors completely changed the way it worked some time ago and we simply
haven't had time or resources to reengineer parts of the theme to work
with the newer version.

WordPress plugins are usually authored by individual volunteers, so code
quality varies widely. Mozilla's security policies set a high standard
for any third party software installed on Mozilla systems that could
potentially compromise the server or user privacy. Plugins need to
undergo a security review and they don't always pass, meaning in some
cases we have to find alternatives and/or work with the plugin
developers to patch the vulnerabilities.


> 2. What is the thinking behind the Community page in its current form?
> https://quality.mozilla.org/community/

The original intent was to create a "QA Planet" that would syndicate
blogs of QA team members and contributors. Since then I'm not sure the
community has found value in it, so it may not be worth maintaining it.


> 3. QMO is currently powered by Wordpress. Is there any other team blog
> in Mozilla that is powered by Wordpress? What would be the pros and cons
> of having a Wordpress-powered team website?

All of blog.mozilla.org is one multisite installation of WordPress and
many teams have their own blogs there. Otherwise the most prominent
instance of WordPress I know of is hacks.mozilla.org. Mitchell's blog at
blog.lizardwrangler.com and Brendan's blog at brendaneich.com are also
running on WordPress but they're more straightforward blogs without many
bells and whistles.

The upside of WordPress is that it's a hugely popular open-source
project, under constant development, and with a very active community.
It is first and foremost a blogging platform and that's what it's best
at. Many people try to bend WordPress into a more full-featured CMS for
non-blog content and, in my experience, the further away you get from a
traditional blog the more problematic WordPress becomes.

If QMO is going to move toward a more traditional blog, then it makes
sense to stay on WordPress rather than switch to some other blog
platform that may be less mature or feature-rich than WP. If QMO is
going to become less of a blog and more of a static site without the
need for regular chronological updates, then it might be better as a
standalone Django site. If it's going to be a wiki, then it should just
be a wiki.

If it's going to be a combination of everything (bespoke static site +
blog + wiki) then it's a case of finding some way to integrate several
different platforms as seamlessly as possible, which can be done with
proper planning (though an integrated wiki sounds like trouble).

Obviously it all depends on what sort of content you intend to host and
how you need to manage it.


> 4. Are there any Mozilla team blogs that are powered by Django? What
> would be the pros and cons of having a Django-powered team website?

Most Mozilla websites are built on a Python+Django platform. The only
Django-powered *blog* I know of is https://mobilepartners.mozilla.org 
which still isn't really a blog, but uses Mezzanine as its CMS
(http://mezzanine.jupo.org). Mezzanine is pretty new and doesn't seem as
full-featured as WordPress, though I haven't worked with it myself so
I'm not really qualified to give a detailed assessment. I've heard mixed
reviews.

Again, the question of platform is mostly a question of the type of
content QMO will house. If it's a blog, I recommend WordPress. If it's
not a blog, then I do not recommend WordPress.

If it *is* a blog and you just really want to use something that isn't
WordPress, you should evaluate all the options objectively and make an
informed decision rather than take a knee-jerk opposition to WordPress
for the sake of it.

My best advice is: Don't start by picking a platform and then stuff your
website into its box. Instead, figure out what you want from this
website and then choose a platform that meets your needs. Define the
problem before you start trying to solve it.

That being said, you still have to work within some constraints. It's
really hard for one site to do absolutely everything, and cramming in a
lot of "nice to have" gizmos often detracts from the "must have" core
features. You start with a wish list then cut it down to something you
can actually build under the given constraints. Sorting out a realistic
set of requirements will inform your choice of platform.


> 5. If the QA team were to re-design QMO while retaining Wordpress, what
> would be the scope of work involved?

The current QMO theme incorporates a lot of custom code to enable
features and functionality that WP lacks out of the box, with third
party plugins filling in many of the gaps. The scope of a redesign is
only dictated by your requirements for content and functionality.

If WP meets your content needs without a lot of custom hacking, it could
be relatively simple to put together a new theme. If you need lots of
custom features, that obviously requires more effort and/or finding and
integrating suitable plugins. And, of course, if you add a lot of
plugins to get more special features, we could be right back where we
are now.


> 6. If the QA team were to re-design QMO while switching to Django, what
> would be the scope of work involved?

This would pretty much mean building a brand new site from scratch. It's
impossible to estimate the scope without a better sense of the
requirements, but to give you some sort of ballpark, the webprod team
typically does this sort of thing in around 8-12 weeks with two or three
dedicated developers, a graphic designer, a UX designer, a QA engineer,
and a project manager. It is not something to be taken lightly.


> 7. Going forward, what is your vision for QMO?

I'm probably not qualified to present a real vision for QMO since I'm
not a primary user. I'm sure your team and community has a much grander
vision than I do. You need to decide what you want to get from QMO and
go from there.

I hope this proves helpful and I'm happy to answer any other questions
or offer any further advice/opinions.

Cheers!
Craig Cook

_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Seeking feedback on quality.mozilla.org (QMO)

Parul Mathur
Thanks to everyone who has taken the time and effort to give us feedback
on QMO so far.

Here is a summary of everyone's feedback, listed category-wise. (If
something is misunderstood or missing, please let me know. New ideas are
always welcome!)

Purpose of QMO
* the entrance page to QA team
* explain what the QA work is
* how QMO is structured for the different products in Mozilla
* welcoming spot for our QA community
* help the community get involved with QA activities: clear directions
on how to start, depending on your skills/interests to give pointers to
more advanced documentation, to promote the upcoming events.
* surface recent news (blogs, feeds) about testing needs,
accomplishments and events

Community Needs
* a summary of how to start at QMO, for the new contributor and pinned
on the home page (How I Can Help Test - should get more prominence).
* documentation should move to Mozilla Developer Network (MDN) where the
rest of Mozilla's documentation resides and is well-indexed by search
engines.
* Event Notification and better Event Calendar - upcoming events *first*
* easy way to adding the events to the calendar (Google, Apple, Lighting
and others), rather than downloading.
* Showing the Badges for QA.
* interaction via IRC
* platform for QA education (open source testing tools, technical skills)
* listing of community members and their contributions / areas of focus

QMO Home Page
* remove the login on the top right of the home page
* create Planet QA with the blog - syndicate feeds from team members' blogs
* update the careers button to the correct link
* publicize open QA meeting on Wednesdays (see https://qa.ubuntu.com/ 
for inspiration)
* keep teams icons since they are adorable (kudos to Craig Cook for
creating them!)
* Video section - get rid of it
* updated theme
* mobile support

Team pages
* Team photo on team page
* each team member's email address for direct community interaction
* links to highlight any specific events/news/blog posts targeting their
projects
* MDN / Wiki links on how to participate in their work.
* link directly to the One and Done tasks already filtered for that project
* the Desktop Firefox page should have links to Nightly/Aurora/Beta
downloads

Based on this summary, I've designed a mockup of what the QMO Home Page
could potentially look like:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/QA/QMO#QMO_Home_Page_2

Do you think that the mockup fulfills everyone's wish list, or have
things been left off? All feedback is welcome! :-)

Thanks,
Parul
Mozilla Community Member
(IRC nick pragmatic on #qa)


_______________________________________________
dev-quality mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-quality
12