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.
- 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
- 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
- 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