Hi David,
> >> In a peer-level multiple author scenario, the subsequent author should not
> >> be accepting or rejecting what is done by the previous author(s).
> *For an interim few weeks*, we aren't in a peer-level multiple-author
> scenario, because it has not yet been demonstrated that this will
> produce the high-quality content the site deserves.
To begin with, we did NOT have multiple authors (as expected), so I was
speaking in general. My statement was in a context where multiple authors have
left their own changes in the same document (without accepting or rejecting the
changes made by the previous author). The question is, whether the tool allows
us to see what those changes are.
> In addition,
> authors who are not mother-tongue English speakers should always be
> proofread by a mother tongue speaker before publishing.
I don't see why.
In fact, in US, the Spelling Bee is mostly won by second-generation Indians.
Indian schools teach British English, so the parents would not be able to pass
on the American tongue to their kids.
Clearly, this has nothing to do with mother tongue, but the proficiency
acquired by the person in question.
> It's traditional in publishing circles to have an editor
> stage-managing publications... When the SC takes its next decision
> about the management of the website, the organization might be
> completely different. ATM, I'm over-seeing the actual publication
> (with open ears and an open mind to all comments and suggestions).
In professional circles, the editor is supposed to mark the manuscript and get
BACK to the author.
Then both of them have to work out the final version. The editor is not the
arbitrator.
The workflow is NOT supposed to be linear, but iterative.
We have "comments" and "discussion" areas for such actions, depending on the
actual tool used.
Regards,
Narayan
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
