| ▲ | stingraycharles 4 hours ago |
| > Good QA people know how to find regression and bugs _that you didn’t think about_ which is the whole reason why it shouldn’t be under “engineering” I don’t understand the reasoning here why QA shouldn’t be engineering. |
|
| ▲ | 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > I don’t understand the reasoning here why QA shouldn’t be engineering. Who watches the watcher, right? That aside, the core idea is the same as the principles of independent audit, peer review, or even simply just specialization. Red team / Blue team? |
| |
| ▲ | stingraycharles 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes but both the red team and blue team would still be engineering. | | |
| ▲ | 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, but police and military are both law enforcement, on one level, but each are very different from the other. Even the military have police, right? edit: ultimately, it comes down to the importance of independent audit, the builders and the breaker/fixers are very different groups in engineering. | |
| ▲ | IAmBroom 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The red team and blue team should not share supervisors. Nor, in the case of QA, should the audit team be engineers trained to act and think like the ones who wrote the software. A fresh perspective is useful. But in the long run, supervisory independence is the real deal. I know of a QA manager who shut down an entire factory's output until a major safety issue (that had been kicked down the road several times) was addressed. It took chutzpah, and serious power, to do that. The Dir. of Engrg. would NEVER have allowed it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | liampulles 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Frankly, calling software development engineering is quite debatable. We should be calling less things engineering that aren't actually engineering qualifications. |
