(subject to change and clarification; this is meant as a starting point for discussion at the February User Docs meeting)
For each of the pathways by which a revision request might arrive, the following steps could be taken:
ACTION: Committee review
ISSUE: What are the possible outcomes of committee review?
Accept and assign revision request
Refer for new documentation
Integrate existing documentation on the topic
Defer to a later date
Reject the request
Others??
ISSUE: Do we need a ticketing system for assigning and communicating out about revisions? If so, what should we use?
ACTION: Assign edits to committee member
ISSUE: Need a formalized process for assigning responsibility for User Manual sections to committee members. This could happen at the beginning of a User Docs term.
ACTION: Committee member makes changes but does not publish
ACTION: Peer review from additional committee member
ISSUE: Need a formalized process for assigning responsibility for peer review. Should committee members have specific responsibilities for certain sections, or should we assign responsibility ad hoc based on availability?
ACTION: Publish changes
The possible pathways for revision requests:
Committee revision proposal
As part of new release (edits passed along from Testing, Tech Docs, or other group, or determined from review of changelogs)
As part of committee work (issue or new documentation need identified in the course of other committee work)
Community revision proposal
Via user manual comment
Via request
Some steps may not be necessary for all pathways, or additional steps may be determined.