Or maybe if they hadn't fired a bunch of people whose job it was to say "I think you're over-correcting here" and with strong arguments and supporting data who

Or maybe if they hadn't fired a bunch of people whose job it was to say "I think you're over-correcting here" and with strong arguments and supporting data who cannot be so easily dismissed as cranks from the minority because it's an actual job function. This reads like the people blaming DNI for declines in software quality after a decade if eliminating quality assurance as a normal and expected participant in development. WTF? Eyes on the prize here. This is about getting it done how we expect it to be done, what ever that may be. Why are we shipping bugs? Because we don't value the function of identifying them and determining the scope of their impact and the relative urgency of addressing. We don't empower anyone to who knows what's going on to stop ship any more. What happened to that? Agree on the target and then hit it. Or don't agree on the target, but hit it none the less. That means understanding your stuff before you ship it and you pay people to do that for you. Boeing cuts the same corners. It's just plain negligence and it's completely unsustainable. Stop letting fear of falling behind lead to failed releases and empower the proper teams to evaluate so you know what's going out the door before your customers do.