Keep up the good work we who are are in the trenches salute you.

I really enjoy these discussions that to me seem to epitomise a fundamental dichotomy in the way our educations systems on the one hand teach us what we are expected to know and on the other hand stifle imagination. It is odd that you go to university to firstly learn what others teach you, then to master that knowledge to the extent that you can teach others and finally if you have proven that you have mastered the knowledge, they may offer you an opportunity to undertake a rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct (Philosopy) or if you like the pursuit of wisdom. I get so many graduates with elaborate degrees in IT proudly displaying their ISTQB foundation certificates who have never taken the time to think. They seem to have never gone outside their front door, never wonder “why it is so” and cannot understand the concept of risk and consequence that is so fundamental to what we do as testers. They are supported in their ignorance by those who paint the world in simple pictures and provide concepts, methodology and processes (and certifications) that make them feel safe. There are marvelous academics out there and great ideas but they are by their nature uncertain, they require that you think, criticise, be sceptical and question and as such they are uncomfortable and ill-fitting. It is much simpler therefore to sell ideas that are comfortable, where you don’t need to think too much. It is much easier to get your bit of paper in two days that says you are capable than to stand there and say you are still learning. It is easy to write a book on exploratory testing for dummies. I will wait for the real thing. “Genius knows its limitations, stupidity is not thus constrained” Oh and the latest from the ISTQB:
Talk the same talk. Everyone will learn accepted, consistent terminology to lessen confusion and misunderstandings.
Become masters of your domain. Mastering fundamental testing principles and practices creates a more productive and cohesive team.
Get “credentials.” “CTFL” at the end of your name not only means that you are an ISTQB™ – Certified Tester, it means you’ve added long-term value to your team and to your company with proven, credible testing standards and processes.

I think CTFL means “Certified Total Fucking Loser”

[James' Reply: The point of my post was not to review his book. I had a different goal in mind: to contradict a specific claim he made, and to publicly put him on notice, since he appears to ignore what I say in private conversations.]

Granted I haven’t read it, but pointing fingers and calling him an “academic who has not been part of the ET leadership group, and also has little or no experience on an industrial software project as a tester or test manager” doesn’t help make your point.

[James' Reply: Really? I think it does. I think it's relevant to report my opinion. If you don't respect my opinion, that's okay. I don't know who you are, either.]

The ideas of exploratory testing may have been taken by others and turned into something you disagree with – but that’s the nature of these things. Take the opportunity to refine your explanations of ET in response to their work instead of belittling their work. Be proud that you helped start something. You don’t own the concept, and someone doesn’t need to be part of your good boy’s club (ET leadership group) to contribute to the conversation of what ET can be.

[James' Reply: I'm not claiming to own anything. I have no trademarks. But I do have a reputation for innovation and incisive work.

Given that the people I'm calling out ignore or mischaracterize what I do, I don't see how "refining" it will help with that. But actually, I've been refining it all along, and continue to do that.]

When I as a beginner searched for materials about exploratory software testing, all I got was some articles and presentation or comments in blogs and suchlike.

When I googled and found the book (James Whittaker’s) about ET I said: FINALLY! and I ordered the book immediatelly. ( I actually ordered your book as well at the same time: Leasson learned in software testing…)

[James' Reply: I wrote a chapter on ET for two different books, and Lessons Learned discusses it.

I spent six months at home writing Secrets of a Buccaneer-Scholar. If I could take another four months off I'd finish my ET book.]

The reason I've spoken up on this is not that I think other people have no right to their own ideas. It's simply that I think these particular people are doing bad work. Since I know I'm going to be asked what I think of what they are doing, I'm going on the record about it.]

Anyway, thanks for all your articles and books.

[James' Reply: The first serious tester I know of is Socrates, but he didn't use that term, or anything much like it.

The way I speak of testing is also consistent with how the word is used in the philosophy of science. In any case, that's my goal.]

[James' Reply: Thanks for reporting that problem. The link now works.]

After looking around for a bit I found the policy in question, however I’m not sure if this is the latest version/the one that you actually wanted to link to.

[James' Reply: Yes, it's correct.]

With regard to ET Skaters, I only today commented on an article from Rob Lambert (http://post.ly/5ogr) about the importance of integrity in our profession.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the book yet and probably won’t now after reading Adam’s review.
From Adam’s review it sounds to me as if the integrity went down the drain here.
If a book about ET is being published, the people who did earlier work on it need to be quoted.

It should cover the area in a way that brings value to the reader. I’d argue that judging from the number of pages only and the poor review that there is a mismatch between the value to the reader and the price of the book.
Furthermore the release of a book like this based on the name of a well-known figure in the testing field could be called an exploitation of the people buying it as especially in our field tester names often are a synonym for quality.
Coming back to my original point, for the sake of making money integrity is taking a second place. In the end it only damages James W so I think in the long run this might backfire which I find more sad than anything else.

I had the chance to hear BJ Rollins keynote speak at SIGIST a couple of months (years?) back and also attended his workshop. While I can clearly see that he has a lot of experience I was a bit bewildered by his stance to ET. Basically he was saying that all testing is exploratory so there’s nothing special about it.

[James' Reply: I don't have the impression that Rollison has much experience as an actual tester or test manager. If he ever saw me for a job interview, I would have to go over that carefully.

Of course all testing is exploratory to some degree. But not many people are good at ET. My quest is to develop methods of training people in the skills of ET so they can operate on a high level. I teach a sort of racing school for testers. Rollison has publicly declared the that things I do are a kind of empty snake oil, designed to extract money from gullible clients. Hmmm. Well. Does he actually know what I do? I haven't seen him contribute at the peer conferences. I'm not aware of a single new method or idea that Rollison has contributed to the field of testing, though he does like to sneer at people who have contributed.]

Sort of saying everyone is special so really nobody is. He then put his MS spin on his testing approach. I don’t mind opinionated people but that was a bit too much for me. I’m not sure if MS breeds this kind of politically minded people spinning facts until they serve their needs. The sad thing is that this is not necessary at all and that more honest discussions would get everyone further. But maybe not as much money in the long run. I’m with Rob L in that one, passion and integrity over money.

I don’t expect to get this published but wanted to share some of my thoughts and impressions.

Thomas