Thanks all for your responses. If you'd like, you can fill out a quick survey on the subject:
http://goo.gl/forms/2XvJR3hB6s On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 16:07 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on generalizing the page-level status tracking we've used > for a few years now to get buy-in from some other projects on a common > documentation lifecycle. Recall ours looks like this: > > https://wiki.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/StatusTracking > > And it got non-normatively memorialized in the Mallard spec: > > http://projectmallard.org/1.0/mal_info_revision > > All of you have been using this for a while now, so I'd like to solicit > feedback on it to see how it could be improved, as well as what works > well right now. Bullet list of questions: > > * Are there any statuses on the list you never use? > > * Do you find yourself wanting a status that's not on the list? I know > we've used a few ad-hoc statuses at hackfests, but I can't remember what > we used them for. > > * Are any statuses confusingly named? I remember "review" wasn't very > popular because it's not an adjective. It's really "ready for review", > but I wanted a succinct word. > > * Are any statuses otherwise poorly named? I remember Jim didn't like > "outdated" because it was demotivating to have all your stuff called > outdated once you release. That might be a place for an additional > status. One for "need to check if this is up to date" and one for "we > checked and we know it ain't". > > * What's your favorite kind of cheese? > > Thanks for the feedback. > > -- > Shaun > > > _______________________________________________ > gnome-doc-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list _______________________________________________ gnome-doc-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list
