> If you're going to treat people like QA people like they're low skilled, and that they really make no difference as people, then you're going to get wind up w

> If you're going to treat people like QA people like they're low skilled, and that they really make no difference as people, then you're going to get wind up with people like that. I wasn't saying that. What I was trying to say is that this style of Quality Assurance tends to have a throughput that scales linearly. There are a lot of professions like that, even highly skilled ones. For example, traditional hand drawn animation (think Bambi or any other classic disney movie) requires highly skilled artists. And though some of those artists maybe faster than others or more proficient, it is nowhere on the scale of what you might see with a profession such as software development. A few A+ developers can probably build a system that can support just as many users just as fast as a much larger C team. The same isn't true for a feature animated film, in which a single person will hit a physical limit to the number of drawings they can create in a day, or for QA'ing a game, where the number of areas that can be tested or bugs that can be found is also bound, and where the quality of the product created does not directly influence productivity by orders of magnitude.