> Good QA people are hard to find True. A good tester is the kind of person who revels in running the same lab experiment many, many times and chortles for al

> Good QA people are hard to find True. A good tester is the kind of person who revels in running the same lab experiment many, many times and chortles for always getting results within the error bars. A good QA is the kind of person who can think of every way something will fail, and then come up with a proactive risk mitigation strategy that makes everyone smile with pride. > QA get run over by aggressive developers True. Back when we had QA/QC, my "One Weird Trick" was to put the QA / Test team in charge of releases. Running the bug triages, in charge of acceptance testing, running the go/no-go meetings, etc. Worked f@#$ing great. Almost like magic. Zero drama. Our releases were almost anti-climatic. I miss the '90s. Well, I miss my '90s QA/Test experience. Most everyone else was stuck in Kem Caner's world. The preeminent "SQA" guru who preached victimhood and grievances. Probably did more than any one to pile drive the QA Test profession into the Mariana Trench of irrelevance. (Apologies, weak sauce, I know. I usually have a better "colorful metaphor" ready to deploy for these types of rants.)