> notes that a previous feature has been approved by reviewers, she moves it into another branch that kicks off a long nightly E2E test suite that is almost always red, managed by a siloed QA team.
This is not a low effective environment. A low effective environment does not have a large e2e test suite. It does not have a siloed QA team, and people write little to no unit tests, never mind integration tests.
If you are in a "low effective environment", a "siloed QA team" is a godsend. At least someone is responsible solely for quality, as opposed to everyone churning out features as fast as they can. Disposing of the siloed QA team in such environments rarely helps matters.
Relative to the highly effective teams the article is describing, the points on the spectrum you discuss here are “low” and “lower”. Sure, low is better than lower. The article is making the case for “high” though.
> notes that a previous feature has been approved by reviewers, she moves it into another branch that kicks off a long nightly E2E test suite that is almost always red, managed by a siloed QA team.
This is not a low effective environment. A low effective environment does not have a large e2e test suite. It does not have a siloed QA team, and people write little to no unit tests, never mind integration tests.
If you are in a "low effective environment", a "siloed QA team" is a godsend. At least someone is responsible solely for quality, as opposed to everyone churning out features as fast as they can. Disposing of the siloed QA team in such environments rarely helps matters.