# ROS Quality Assurance Working Group meeting minutes - March 2018 Meeting

**URL:** <https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-meeting-minutes-march-2018-meeting/4226>\
**Category:** Quality Assurance\
**Created:** [March 16, 2018, 12:44pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-meeting-minutes-march-2018-meeting/4226 "2018-03-16T12:44:15Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Alami](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/alami/32/1471_2.png) [@Alami](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/Alami)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2018, 12:44pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-meeting-minutes-march-2018-meeting/4226/1 "2018-03-16T12:44:15Z")

</div>

1. Two instances have taken place this month. The first was the 7th and the second was the 14th

2. A list of quality metrics was presented for discussion. The list was compiled based on @tyagikunal [post](http://discourse.ros.org/t/what-quality-metrics-do-we-need-to-make-packages-quality-visible/3985/12). The objective is to define a set of metrics to use in order to “make ROS packages quality visible”.

3. These quality metrics have been discussed:

4. A decision has been made to put the list into a google document ([The link to the spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ujwc2rjmywWpiamCGNRAdD3USNurXLqunIvgSrSbwvM/edit#gid=0)) and share it with the group to allow people to contribute to the list development.

5. We invite people to take initiative and contribute to the development of spreadsheet. Your contributions will make it happen!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![facontidavide](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/facontidavide/32/1674_2.png) [@facontidavide](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/facontidavide)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2018, 9:51am UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-meeting-minutes-march-2018-meeting/4226/2 "2018-03-19T09:51:41Z")

</div>

Hi,

I would like to contribute to this working group in the future. Kudos for the initiative!

My 2 cents is that it would be useful to prioritize our quality metrics. A list of 29 elements might be intimidating for people which are doing the transition from “it just works” to professionally written code.

I guess we can approach it in the 80/20 rules, ie. 20% of this recommendation can already solve 80% of typical issues.

Clang sanytizers and Unit Test for example are extremely powerful best practices, IMHO.

Davide

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Alami](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/alami/32/1471_2.png) [@Alami](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/Alami)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2018, 2:04pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/ros-quality-assurance-working-group-meeting-minutes-march-2018-meeting/4226/3 "2018-03-19T14:04:19Z")

</div>

I agree, it is an ambitious list. We should prioritize and have an iterative approach to the implementation. We should also think of the audience of these metrics, i.e. How they may interpret these metrics?