Its Software Editor, not QA Person
Sometimes, the words you use matter.
In publishing, the most senior person that works for a magazine is often called "Editor-in-Chief". That is, the lead person takes a title that speaks to the idea that quality control (aka editing) - is so important that it is part of the ultimate leadership title.
Notice that in software development, we know almost nobody called "Quality Assurance Manager In Chief". That is because, for whatever reason, QA is often seen as the ugly stepchild to the software developers. Ever try to get budget for a QA person when money is tight? I have. It isn't easy. Excuses abound - everything from "we can barely afford software developers, we can't afford testers" ... to "just make the devs do it right the first time, if we need testers, we really need better software developers".
Bleh. Even Steven King has an editor. So does every other great writer - and for that matter, even most of the mediocre ones. In fact, most writers love having a good editor, as the editor has a good reputation for making the author's product better, avoiding much embarassment.
So, why do software developers stereotpyically hate testers? Well - in many organizations, the 'tester' - aka software editor, is Ms. Bad News. The edits are called 'bugs', and the stakes for being known for producing a lot of bugs can be pretty high in some (most?) places. Because the stakes are high, we have a phrase that can only come from the software world: "that's not a bug, thats a feature!". The QA person is often the person that stands between the developer and getting something out before a high stakes deadline.
Now, there are some (few!) that say TDD has the potential to make QA obsolete. Well... that would be a no. I like to think of TDD as the editing equivalent of spelling and grammar checker. You are darn sure you know it is there, and it certainly helps you have a better product by the time QA gets it, but it clearly is no substitute for QA.
So, a humble suggestion. I suggest we quit calling em testers or QA people, and start calling them Software Editors. Maybe then, someday, we will not have development managers, but we will have Software Editor-in-Chief.
Just an idea :)