[prettyrandom100]

What if the bug was severe security bugs, several of them which definitely helped make the software better ? I've been a firm believer that there are "million dollar bugs" that could destroy the product completely, shouldn't those be considered big problems for world's organizations ? I think I might have already learned these things you pointed out in the 1 year I spent, does adding one more year really help much ?

[brudgers]

Let's say there's a 1% chance of a $1,000,000 bug. Insuring against it costs $12,000/year (expected payout * 1.2).

It takes 40 hours @ $100/hour * 2.0 overhead to fix it = $8000: And the expected net value of 40 hours of developer work is $4000. This makes fixing the bug versus insuring against it a wash.

Assessing risk and evaluating alternatives is the basis for rational business decision making. Throw in a 1% chance that the bug fix produces a $100 regression bug, and the business case is for insurance.

Again there's nothing wrong with quitting a job you hate. But it is probably a mistake to assume that the entire operation is staffed by incompetents. People have different perspectives based on their job responsibility.

Good luck.

[prettyrandom100]

I never said anything about the competence of the staff, it's just the politics. Also I'm not talking about insuring against the bug, but meriting a bug (or any work) based on the difficulty/impact.