I'm reconsidering my position around need of testers in teams, and as a tester, I am not doing this lightly. I am starting to believe that with agile (and learning cycles), developers get smart enough not to need manual testers around.— Maaret Pyhäjärvi (@maaretp) March 23, 2020
The concern here is that all testing is level 1. Well, with the number of stories flying around, even with all groups groups of developers having someone like this writing executable documentation on expectations exist, they still have a lot of work as is.
As context goes, they too are in a wheel of their own with their idea of priorities that make sense.
4th Data Point
Automation and Infrastructure is a significant enabler, and it does not stay around any more than any other software unless it is maintained and further developed. The test automation programmer creates and maintains a script here and there, test a thing here and there but find that creating that new functionality we all could benefit from needs someone to volunteer for it. Be it turning manually configured Jenkins to code in a repository, or our most beloved test automation telemetry to deal with the scale, there is work to be done. As frameworks are best being used by many, they make their way to sharing and enabling others too.
In a team of 10 people, we have 10 testers, because every single developer is a tester. With the four generalizing specializing testers, we cover quite many of the Eights.
The question remains for me: is the "Story Testing lvl 10" as necessary and needed I would like to believe it is? Is the "Story Testing lvl 1" as unnecessary to separate from automation creation as I believe it is? And how things change when one is pulled out - who will step up to fill the gaps?
How do you model your team's testing?