3 ms·
> Just saying, once you find out the testing team is unreliable, you make sure there's a form of evidence it actually got tested Once you find out the heart su
by albedoa 1y ago
> Just saying, once you find out the testing team is unreliable, you make sure there's a form of evidence it actually got tested
Once you find out the heart surgeon shows up drunk to the operating room, you make sure there is an additional nurse there to hold his arm steady.
- dwattttt 1y agoI... with the evocative scenario... would choose another remedy, rather than have a nurse steady the drunken surgeon's arm.
- rcxdude 1y agoI think that's the point. If you have an incompetent team or team member the number of checks around them can grow astronomically and still you will have problems. At a certain point the systemic problem can become "the system is unwilling to replace this person/team with a competent one". (That said, this is only in the case of persistent problems. Everyone can be inattentive some of the time, and a sensible quality system can be very helpful here. It's when the system tries to be a replacement for actually knowing what you're doing that things go off the rails)
- crazygringo 1y ago:P I mean, obviously assuming you don't have the choice of changing your testing team. But even if you do, what if they're worse?