...and this is different from the software testers/SQA/QA folks that are employed by said manager (assuming the GD is lucky enough to have folks to do their dirty work for them, of course, and that the GD is actually someone other than the original developer...)?
Either way, this part of the argument seems kinda silly/weak. <shrug>
it reflect real world politics. If there is a quality assurance department, like the user interface engineer, it should have complete carte blanche to tell a developer how to change things and that developer must obey. As soon as it flips, the other departments become powerless to advocate on behalf of the user and quality suffers.
if you don't have a quality assurance department and must rely on the original developer, that's like the fox guarding the chicken coop. Most of the time, you won't be happy with the results.
---eric
-- http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/view.html?pg=5
The result of the duopoly that currently defines "competition" is that prices and service suck. We're the world's leader in Internet technology - except that we're not. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
