Hi Hazel, Jean, guys,
Reviewing and proofreading are two very different activities. A
reviewer needs to be knowledgeable about the software being described,
so that he/she can check the accuracy of every statement made about it.
A proofreader is looking for quite different things: errors,
infelicities of style, bad cross-references, figures that don't show
what they're supposed to, etc. Logically this should be the last stage
before publication, when the reviewers have done all they want to. But
your work flow scheme doesn't allow for this.
I understand what you mean. In a formal organization (a software
company or whatever), the workflow you're talking about would be very
important. But, in the LibreOffice docs team, the actual reality is
that we currently have a small number active contributors whose work
contributions frequently overlap between those formal roles. Also, the
types of role that those contributors assume also change fluidly. A
given person is often doing both the reviewing and proofreading at the
same time. The editor and publisher is frequently doing those jobs,
too. And the editor/publisher roles sometimes have to be taken on by
someone else if a team member or the team leader becomes temporarily
unavailable. We *really* have a fuzzy, fluid organization.
Also, the team has people with different degrees of technical
proficiency in docs development and publishing and of technical
familiarity with the IT tools being used. And there's a permanent goal
of lowering the knowledge entry barrier for newcomers as much as
possible, and of encouraging new people to get involved. Some
newcomers become long-term contributors, others contribute for a short
while - or even only for a particular guide. But we want to preserve
high quality in the content produced.
I think I'd recommend maximal simplicity. That will facilitate
learning to contribute, learning to administer/maintain, the writing
of documentation for all that, and the actual implementation work
itself.
It would be possible to configure a very strict and controlling
workflow in Alfresco, with specific permissions for each work role and
each folder, and quite a bit of automation (automated movement of docs
from one folder to another, automated alerts via email, automated task
attribution to specific user groups, etc.). Or else things could be
left quite fuzzy, with everyone having almost identical powers, and
things being done much more manually (basically the current
situation).
However, IMHO, it would be good to start using Alfresco's blogging
facilities, maybe it's wiki functionality, and it's automated email
alerts and RSS feeds.
You could also consider Twitter as a good channel for updates, both
automated and manual. Using Twitter would do away with the need to
sign-up for and follow a mailing list, and put you closer to potential
contributors from the huge Twitter membership.
Most of all, I'd definitely recommend revising the file naming
conventions and taking advantage of Alfresco's built-in versioning.
And I'd definitely recommend coming-up with a clearly-defined set of
meta data fields to be maintained in each file.
If we arrive at a clear and comprehensible specification, I could
possibly see with the Alfresco project whether they might handle the
implementation.
Anyway, this is all thinking for your consideration.