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
