Rant on "Quality Assurance": QA is a con-man's term which should only be used under protest. First, "quality" is a term which, like "culture" should not have an assumed prefix of "high-". A con-man can assure you that a product has "quality" without indicating that it is mediocre quality. Most good manufacturers, in practice, if not in marketing, try to "control" quality. There is a level of quality above which the extra quality costs more than is added in extra sales resulting from extra customers satisfaction. Quality Control is the honest term. (Of course, using the dishonest term might result in extra sales, but some choices are influenced by morality as well as income.)
I find it interesting that while creating this site, I found over 2000 links over the course of a few months, before encountering any material on the general subject of quality control or quality improvement, except possibly some claims that open software is of higher quality than proprietary software.
I recognize that some open software is widely enough used that a high percentage of bugs are eventually found, but modifications of that code and less widely used code will have bugs that wouldn't exist if QC was given more attention. It is arguable what form the QC should take and what level of QC is best for whom.