New draft workflow for magazine articles

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 04/27/2015 10:53 PM, Ryan Lerch wrote:
> On 04/27/2015 11:26 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>> On 04/27/2015 03:47 AM, Ryan Lerch wrote:
>>> I have been working on trying to write up the workflow for how we write
>>> and publish new articles on the magazine, and have started with the
>>> following document:
>> Is this likely to encourage more folks to write for the magazine, or is
>> this going to seem like a lot of overhead to people who've never
>> contributed?
> 
> This is bascially the workflow we currently have, with the exception of
> having the pitch status. The new workflow just moves steps that would
> have been discussed on the mailing list to a more central location of
> the wordpress instance.
> 
> The magazine is not a wiki, so IMHO, this is the bare minimum of
> workflow that we can put in place to ensure that the magazine is not a
> free-for-all post whatever you feel like place. Having a small amount of
> editorial oversight will result in better focused content and better
> quality content.
> 
>>
>> Will this workflow apply to everything posted or mainly directed at new
>> contributors? (e.g. Am I going to have to pitch something like a beta
>> announcement or final release, or something we've worked on in the Cloud
>> Working Group?)
> 
> I think these steps will be good for all posts, as it will give other
> editors the chance to review and edit the content before it is
> published. I have also started putting a few post ideas up on the
> magazine in "pitch" status as placeholders for forthcoming posts.

Are we currently defining editors as anybody who has that role in
WordPress, or...?

> Getting posts drafted up in the magazine interface earlier is a good
> idea, IMHO, as everyone involved can see the posts that are upcoming,
> and when we start getting more content, we can be more selective on a
> publishing schedule.

My two cents - we're a ways away from needing this much process, and our
largest issue is getting content in the pipeline. Suggesting that some
types of content (contributor-focused) are unwelcome/belong on planet,
and putting more hurdles between contributor and publication seem at
odds with having more content in the pipeline.

Note that I'm all for ensuring the content is edited and in top shape
before publication - but my concern is more around editing for
typos/grammatical errors and so forth rather than "is this content of
interest to everybody?"

Who is currently reviewing the "ready to review queue"? We've had a post
from one author sitting in the pending queue since the 1st, AFAICT.

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/attachments/20150506/36ce457f/attachment.sig>