Much-delayed detailed responses to some of David's workflow
suggestions are interleaved below in his note. I may respond to others
in a separate note. --Jean
OK, the workflow we originally set-up on Alfresco...
The doc start in the "Drafts" folder. A considered-ready
draft gets approved and goes forward to the "Review" folder. A
reviewer proofreads it, and either it gets approved and gets moved
forward to the "Publish" folder, or it gets rejected and goes back to
"Drafts".
IMO it is better for reviewer and editors to do their work (using LO's
change tracking tools) and then let the author (or someone else)
review those edits and comments and accept/reject them individually
before approving the doc and moving it to the Publish folder. We
typically do that all within the Feedback folder, though it could be
done by returning to Drafts.
I mention this because in this case, as with some other suggestions
you've made, the workflow concepts of what we are doing (write,
review, edit, publish) are getting mixed up with how to handle the
workflow within the tool (Alfresco).
The act of approval or rejection (it wasn't always actually
used) was to click on one of two menu options in the right-hand menu
that appears when your mouse pointer hovers over the document. The
result was that Alfresco would move the document to one folder or the
other.
That's fine with me, and in fact I quite like that process.
When the doc actually lands in the Publish folder, the bells sound and
the doc gets published.This is a manual process... [details snipped]
Questions: Is there a real need for more than Draft/Review/Publish
folders? What is the real value of the Feedback folder? Could we
usefully just eliminate it and simplify things?
The Feedback folder is used as a place for members of the Docs team to
submit docs they have reviewed or edited as part of our normal
process. "Feedback" probably isn't the best name for it; "Review" is
probably better. The purpose is the same.
Question: The workflow described on the wiki involves 4 roles -
Writer, Reviewer, Editor, Publisher. Could we usefully simplify that
to Writer and Reviewer? Editor and Publisher could potentially be
eliminated, because of my file-naming suggestion below.
At ODFAuthors, in the English team we have two roles within the
software itself: "Author" and "Manager". "Authors" have the authority
to write, review, edit, publish. Within the conceptual *workflow*
(that is, what people do, separate from what the software does),
however, we distinguish between writing, reviewing, editing, and
publishing roles. [Aside: some language groups may do this
differently.]
Suggestion: On Alfresco, you could usefully revise the file-naming
conventions. Keep the conventions as regards the title of the manual.
But remove the version info from the filename. Instead, decide what
fields you want to have in the meta data of each file, and store the
version info in there only. The advantages I'd see are discussed
below.
[...]Possible different solution
Have 2 folders for each manual: "Work-in-progress" and "Published".
All work gets done on the file in "Work-in-progress" and there is only
ever one file for each chapter of a manual in the "Work-in-progress"
folder.Alfresco's versioning system updates the version number of the file
each time someone uploads some work done (via "Upload new version"
under "More..."). One can easily roll back to a previous version
number if necessary, or download an old version number if desired.Each worker enters a comment in the Alfresco comment box when
uploading, stating the work done (and/or in a comment field in the
document meta data).
This is over-simplified and will probably cause workers to lose track
of what they should be doing. See comments elsewhere in this note.
Although, a variation using sub-folders under Word-in-progress for
drafts, reviewed, and edited could work.
The same file is used even when work starts on updating a chapter to
take account of a new version of LibreOffice. In this case, the
LibreOffice version number is updated by a team member in the file's
meta data. You don't have to worry about incrementing any file version
number in the meta data, because Alfresco is handling the version
numbering.
We need to create chapter and book files for new each version of LO
with new filenames, not just in the metadata. This because we keep
files for more than one version of LO on the wiki, and those files
must have different names.
When the file is finally publication-ready, one uploads it ("Upload
new version" in "More...") as a new version of a file of the same name
already existing in the "Published" folder.
Only for updates (corrections) to existing published chapters.
That existing file is
already linked-to on the wiki and on libreoffice.org (the link comes
from the public browser on http://media.libreoffice.org), so there is
nothing to update and no further action is necessary (except
generating a new PDF file for the entire manual).
No. See above.
The same naming simplification for PDF files would eliminate the same
wiki/libreoffice.org drudgery as for the ODT files.
Related thought:
I use the date and initials on files that are works in progress to
track them on my own computer as well as to get a quick overview of
who has changed a file and when -- without having to consult the
metadata.
I find this extremely convenient and simple. While I can go back to
Alfresco and download an older version of a file if I want it (or look
in the metadata to see when and by whom it was changed), in most cases
that is a nuisance compared to having it on my own computer with the
info in the filename.
That said, I appreciate that Alfresco is more convenient to use with
one unchanging file name for each version of LO. I can manually change
filenames upon download if that makes the whole process easier for
everyone.
I would like to know if others find the date-and-initials file
suffixes useful or if they are irrelevant to the way you work.
On the wiki page, eliminate the publication dates (removing more
arduous manual work). Don't most people just want to download the
latest available version? One can always just post on the blog when
one publishes a new version, if one wants to.
Users have specifically requested dates on the wiki page, so they can
easily see whether there is a new version (update) of a chapter or
book that they might already have a copy of. They won't go trawling
through the blog (if they are even aware of the blog) to find out
whether something new has been posted.
Possible further simplification
Just publish PDF files as the final deliverable to the public - one
PDF file for each manual.
Providing chapter files, not just the full manual, is IMO a service to users.
Personally, I *never* consume documentation in .odt form, I *always*
prefer an entire manual in one PDF file. For me, a .odt file is a
working medium not a consumption medium.
Others may wish to use .ODT files for easier amendment, translation,
etc. We have to produce them before creating the PDFs, so why not make
them available to the public? (Other than a bit of extra uploading on
our part.)
A PDF file can be opened on almost any computing device. A .odt file
specifically requires LibreOffice to be installed.
No, it doesn't. It can be opened in other programs that users might
have. However, that is IMO irrelevant. Let people choose what is best
for them.
Another suggestion that has been made is to produce and provide hybrid
PDFs, which can be opened in LO for editing or in a PDF reader for
viewing. I would not consider these to be a substitute for providing
ODTs for those who want them, and I am a bit reluctant to create
hybrid PDFs because of the increased file size. I am acutely aware of
the problems some people have, if they are on dial-up, a slow
"broadband" connection, or an expensive connection such as mobile
devices sucking data off a 3G/4G connection.
--Jean