discuss: Re: Processes
Subject:
Re: Processes
From:
Tabatha Marshall ####@####.####
Date:
25 Feb 2004 04:05:53 -0000
Message-Id: <1077681924.10184.141.camel@mysticchild>
On Sat, 2004-02-07 at 14:00, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Emma Jane Hogbin ####@####.####
>
> > [This final note is NOT in reply to Rodolfo's email. It because I still
> > pissed off at David's original off-list email and Mr. Raymond's statement
> > that policies set in place in 2001 in the Reviewer HOWTO were somehow
> > "invented" while he "wasn't looking."]
>
> My impression of Eric's comment was, to the contrary, that he sounded
> impressed and bemused at LDP arriving at a formal submission process,
> and wasn't trying to be the least bit critical.
The process was there, but all tucked away safe and sound in the
Reviewer HOWTO. When I happened along a couple of years ago, I couldn't
work on reviews without having a definitive step-by-step process in
place - not only for myself, but for the occasional new reviewer who
came in and needed to be "trained." Reading the Reviewer HOWTO was
great, but it still didn't have a real step-oriented solution.
Once I figured out the steps I took, I made a regular habit of
broadcasting them on the mailing lists until Emma was kind enough to
come along and put all that great work into both Author Guide and
Reviewer HOWTO, nailing the info down more clearly for future AND
existing authors.
On the plus side, these days new authors (with the exception of poor
Eric) get an email from me when they submit a new doc, where I outline
the process that needs to take place.
We placed the info where we thought people would benefit from it the
most - the docs. My hopes are that by doing so, the mystery is
completely removed from the review process.
Tab
--
Tabatha Marshall
Web: www.merlinmonroe.com
Linux Documentation Project Review Coordinator (http://www.tldp.org)
Linux Counter Area Manager US:wa (http://counter.li.org)
