Review Process

[Marsha Kamish <MKamish -at- STEWART -dot- COM>]

I have searched the archives and found some interesting material but most of
it is over a year old so I'm hoping y'all will bear with me.  Here goes:

I have been tasked with developing a review process for in-house software
documentation.  Has anyone any experience with such a process?  (Boy, what a
stilted paragraph!)  Do you know of any web sites that might prove helpful?
TIA!

Here's what I've brainstormed so far:

Review process meeting to inform all of process.
Discussion/definitions/whatever of what technical review is versus editorial
review and who does which.
Checklist attached to portion of doc to review.
Timeline of project with review portion highlighted.
Time estimate for each reviewer.
Sign-off sheet with circulation list (who gets the piece next).

Questions:

Is one technical review enough if the function doesn't change (I know, I
know)?
How many editorial reviews are necessary?
How do y'all feel about Judith Tarutz' (Technical Editing: The Practical
Guide for Editors and Writers) types of edits?  Should I attempt to have one
reviewer per type of edit (i.e., Proofreader, Production Editor, Copy
Editor, Literary Editor, Developmental Editor, Technical Editor, etc.)?
Then what about the levels of edit?  (See her Chapter 6!)

I'm going to stop now before they come to get me with their funny white
jacket.  Please help.  Thank you.


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=