RE: Workflow

["Dauphin, William M." <william.dauphin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

David:

>>It's not a question of ownership, it's a question of responsibility.<<

I'm not at all sure we disagree; I suspect what I meant by "ownership" is
very close to what you mean by "responsibility."
 
>>Having one person responsible for a document means that they are 
responsible for all the editing, but not necessarily all the content.<<

Yeah. In my situation the "tech writer" (me or one of my colleagues... but
we're really more like editors, despite our title) is responsible for all
the editing, and one designated person is responsible for all the content...
but that person almost certainly didn't *write* all the content and may well
have written very little of it. So while there's one "reviewer" whose
authority supercedes all the other reviewers' (theoretically, at least!
<g>), from a purely process point of view there's no distinction between
reviewers based on whether or not they actually wrote the particular text
they're marking up. In general, we don't give *anyone* access to our master
files, not even the content owner/responsible individual.

OTOH (and this is what my second post was intended to acknowledge), that
might not be the case in a more author-driven scenario. I can imagine, for
instance, if you were working with a single author on a novel or a
nonfiction narrative book, you might want both the editor and the author to
work collaboratively in the same set of master files, but restrict
third-party reviewers (in-process reviewers, I mean; not critics) to a
markup scheme.

Horses for courses, eh?

-Bill

** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **