10:1? You do realize QA has to have a semblance of life too? Adding more QA isn't designed to screw up the process, but to alleviate the workload. If you want

10:1? You do realize QA has to have a semblance of life too? Adding more QA isn't designed to screw up the process, but to alleviate the workload. If you want to blame anything or anyone, I'd usually shoot for 1) hiring incompetent QA that isn't SDETs but merely just black-box QA competency, and 2) process - or lack of process, i.e. an agile process of building a little, testing a little, and delivering consistently a working product on pretty much any basis - monthly, weekly even.... That's the ideal of course. If this is in place, adding extra QA can be beneficial. None of this of course is excuse for a dev not producing code that works at least in its happy path plus/minus a few of the most obvious exceptions/error paths...