workflow (was Progress report)

[Tammy Fox]

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 12:35 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 13:56, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 16:03, Tammy Fox wrote:
> > > 
> > > I set up 129722 for docs that were through the proof phase and were
> > > ready to push live. So, technically, they aren't supposed to move there
> > > yet. I would blame the docs, but I helped write them. ;-)
> > 
> > You can't blame them anyway, it was my fault. I went back and reviewed
> > the Quick Start Guide again, and it does state that "once the writer and
> > editor feel it is ready to be published to the website, make bug 129722
> > depend on this bug so the project maintainer can review it and post it
> > to the website." I didn't read carefully enough, so shame on me.
> 
> I've read this several times now, and I still get the same
> interpretation.
> 
> 1. Writer (Paul) and Editor (Karsten) think the doc is ready, so it gets
> pushed to 129722
> 
> 2. Web editor/maintainer (Tammy) continues workflow in 129722, doing a
> final edit before publishing.
> 
> Isn't this what Paul did?
> 
> Now, if what Tammy -meant- was that 129722 was only for docs that are
> totally edited, and literally just in the queue for inclusion on the
> website, then we need to fix the docs to reflect that.
> 
> I think of this in terms of the roles and the workflow.  In the current
> situation, Tammy is filling several roles, i.e., project maintainer, Web
> maintainer, publication editor, etc.  Since these are roles, they can be
> parsed into different people, and their actions are associated with
> different phases in a document's lifecycle.
> 
> Below is a representation of the workflow, aiui.
> 
> In this situation, I completed the Editing phase and sent the documents
> onto the Publication phase, which is represented in 129722.  In that
> phase, if Tammy finds enough problems, she can send it back to me to
> resolve as I see fit, or bounce it all the way back to the Writing
> phase.  The latter wouldn't usually occur; minor edits can be done by
> the publication editor, editor, or writer.
> 
> A different workflow, which is what I think Tammy is talking about,
> would have two parts to the Editing phase, or just insert a Publication
> Editing phase after the Editing phase.  So, it just comes down to where
> we think the final-final edit/check-over should be in the workflow.
> 
> # Current Workflow
> 
> ## Writing phase
> 
> Writer writes
> Editor observes
> 
> ## Editing phase
> 
> Editor edits, can send back to Writing phase or send on to Publication
> phase
> 
> ## Publication phase
> 
> Publication editor does a final read, approves or sends back to Editing
> or Writing phases.
> 
> Web maintainer takes a document, only after it's been approved for
> publication, and puts it on the site.  Any problems after that go
> through a bug maintenance phase.
> 


Thanks for writing this out Karsten. Yes, I meant that I think there
should be 2 phases after the edit phase -- one in which the publication
editor reviews it and once in which the web maintainer publishes it
after publication editor handoff. Perhaps we need another tracker bug? I
hate to add even more process into the mix, but it would make it easier
for me to remember which tutorials need my edits and which just need to
be pushed live (other than the post-it note on my LCD). Right now, there
seems to be one tracker bug with the label "Docs ready for going to
fedora.redhat.com. " To me, the label implies they have past the
publication editor phase. So, we either need to add another tracker or
change the summary of the tracker bug to be more inline with its
purpose.

Tammy