We had a discussion about the editing process today that covered a lot of topics. Here are my messy notes. Please add in your notes. From here we can start to work up some documents such as: * Our style guide that calls out to other style guides, then begins to note our house preferences. * More content into a sample chapter/template, as we have it style-wise. * Workflow overviews for how the review process works. == notes - Chapter will have 3 edit phases - SME or tech editor step - single source is not ideal but may be needed - development or style edit - common terms, nomenclature - without changing author's voice much - copyedit - last edit in process before labeled ready to publish - may do more than one copyedit pass - if not a lot of changes, more than one copyedit pass - IBM Style, Chicago MOS - - author review process - TBD to figure out still, to some degree - in GitHub, we can have back/forth and annotation within the document - keeping this back/forth in GH tooling - in GitHub, you have - work on own branch - named reviews? - use PR with github review feature - first basic edit over check pass/no-pass (a reality check) - is this ready to work onward or not? - SME reviews - document should show SME edit status - can do their review on mailing list or issue - add new columns to split up Editing - ACTION - ultimately our style guide will get generated as we go - voice of chapters - look to style guide as primary way to shape voice and narrative - collective decisions migrate to the style guide -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide