On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 18:43, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Karsten, did you have a 'techie' review in your process
document?
In my mind, I thought of this as part of the editor role. However, that
might be asking too many skills of an editor - grammar/writing and
technical review. There is some value in having it be a separate role.
In an ideal world, give (the html version) to the author of the tool?
Believe me, I've written about stuff I really don't understand; so I
agree its expecting a bit much :-) Some people can, others can't.
~Be nice to recognise that?
Since one person can fill many roles,
+1, but the task needs doing (my earlier point), hence recognising that
is good.
The key in that process which might not have been obvious is -- it's all
about writers and editors. Everything from acceptance as in-progress
for Fedora docs to publication on
fedora.redhat.com needs to be an
agreement between the author(s) and the editor(s).
And if needed, the techies who understand what this particular XYZ does?
Which reminds me, I need to find someone to edit the FC2 SELinux FAQ
before it can go live ...
Not me!
I've enough faq work :-)
--
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl