On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Diana Shannon wrote: > Right, but shouldn't they at least alert Cocoon about their efforts? Why > run the risk of duplicate effort when we have so many holes?
Sure ... quite often in the past this happens with people sending an email to the list saying something like "would anyone be interested in <foo/>?" They'll then either be bombarded with "yes please" or "merge with X" or "here's my version, please add to it". I agree that holes in the content is a problem, but having a list of holes to fix (or even blank templates for people to fill out) will solve that. > >> 7. Editor forwards outline to the SME (subject matter expert). > > > > This could probably be skipped ... let peer-review catch it. I think > > most > > of the steps other than the ones highlighted here could be skipped, too. > > If they prove to be needed, they can always be added back in. > > But what if the author is overlooking something? Wouldn't you rather > catch this in an outline than in a draft? Why are you adding extra work > for SMEs to fill in the missing content? Isn't it the authors job? I > don't want to make any extra work for SMEs who are probably busy enough > just contributing code! No, I wouldn't expect the SMEs to fill in the missing content - at most I'd expect them to say "you should include X". It's then up to the original author (or the community) to tighten up the document until it's complete. Two bonuses with this approach: it makes the original author more responsible for their work, and it teaches the author by showing them gaps in their knowledge (making them better authors for the future). Andrew. -- Andrew Savory Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)870 28 47489 This is not an official statement or order. Web: www.luminas.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
