Docs QA

Paul W. Frields stickster at
Thu Nov 11 19:16:22 UTC 2010

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:09:28PM -0600, Jesús Franco wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 09:40:41PM +0100, Travis Whitlock wrote:
> > I would suggest attempting to have an independent reviewer.  Meaning a
> > member of the docs team that ideally has not worked on the section they are
> > reviewing.  Familiarity with a document is usually the best way to overlook
> > mistakes.
> It would be a great way to letting 'shy' people like me, not brave
> enough to mess with the work done, but able to read and test some
> things and reporting some issues, actually contributing to the
> project.
> I'm glad with this *huge* proposal. I'm going to take it to
> translators too, because sometimes the translators don't use
> terminology dictionaries (nor peer reviews), and leads to confussion
> when instead of using the terms specific for the matter of the
> documentation, they use generic translations, missing the sense of the
> original author.

This is a great idea.  Most dead-tree technical books out there
(including the ones about Fedora) get independent technical review.
Having done this myself, I can tell you it definitely helps the
finished product immensely.  We probably have other lurking people who
would put a hand up and say, "I can test <N> chapters of this book for

Paul W. Frields                      
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717   -  -  -  -
          Where open source multiplies:

More information about the docs mailing list