Re: [authors] Novice questions (for the site administrator)

[Gary Schnabl]

JF wrote: Note: This message deals with a few simple administrative issues; those of you with better things to do can ignore this thread. I have been making a conscientious effort to get familiar with your website and reviewing system so that I don't make too many blunders too soon. I have read the suggested guides and the online instructions. Phase 1 of my apprenticeship is complete and here are the results. 1. A technical question about the reviewing process. I understand that I should not review any file marked 'visible'. When I looked in the Contributor Resources folder, I saw that the files 'Template HowTo for V2 docs', 'Style Guide for V2 docs', and 'Writing OOo Guides' are all marked 'published'. So far, so good. However, when I looked in the 'Feedback' subfolder, I saw that it already contained versions of these files. Does this mean that I should not review the files in the main folder because some changes have yet to be processed? (It was even more confusing because some of the content of the Feedback files appeared to be in the main files, but some substantial changes were not.) JF: When I came upon the OOoAuthors scene in April, I, like you, read the three OOoAuthors style guides and also reviewed them. What you saw in the Feedback folder for Contributor Resources are my original reviews with their unimplemented changes. The _GS affixed to the end of the file name are my initials. [If you're interested in seeing what these docs were before their reviews during the first or second week in April, just reject all the edits: Edit > Changes > Accept or Reject > Reject All.] It's probably time to delete those older files because they've been there for over two months. I don't know the SOP for their time duration in the Feedback after being published, but I reckon it's time to pull them. Incidentally, I know that you have higher priority documents to be reviewed, but those were the ones I needed to read first, and I noticed a few minor issues. I thought that documenting them would be a good way to familiarize myself with the reviewing process before tackling larger projects. 2. A suggestion. In "How the review process works", there is no mention of how the file download is performed. I figured it out, but it might be useful to others to describe the process briefly. (Alternatively, this description could be added to the end of the "How to retract a document" page, assuming that you consider downloading as part of the retraction process.) Do you care to rewrite some of the HTML in such a manner to simplify/reorganize it? You have the subject material still in your head, and you know about any sticky points you might have encountered. You can also reproduce your writings for viewing on the almost-empty forum in the public forum category. I waded through those web pages myself two months ago but haven't revisited them since then. That's probably enough for the present... Gary