Reviewers who don't review

[James Jones]

Forgive me for possibly not understanding, because I have not been following
this thread closely, but I seem to remember that the original poster's point
was that somebody had signed off on something and the signature was supposed
to have meant that that somebody did in fact review the doc. Later
developments in the case proved that the review had not been that good. 
  Whether or not the somebody should have been reviewing that doc is a
completely different issue from what his signing off ought to have meant. In
my opinion, if someone signs off on a doc as having reviewed it, then that's
what it oughtta mean. Always and forever. 

Jim Jones  http://tinyurl.com/4arjc

-----Original Message-----
John Posada wrote:

>>but the QA geek didn't hire us. They hired him to do what he does,
and unless he is instructed by his management that his job includes
documentation review (like around here), he'll do what management
requires of him, and they didn't say "review docs".<<

John Rosberg wrote

And he's absolutely correct -- I've seen, at a couple of shops,
responsibility for doc/help reviews added to Job Descriptions for the
appropriate personnel -- this, of course, did not make the problem
vanish overnight, but it certainly helped.

I've also seen the reviewers and expected turnaround times listed in the
Doc Plans for projects. Ditto the lack of disappearing problems, but it
does make the issue more visible, and can help make certain that SOME
reviews do occur on time.

If they ALL occurred on time, and with a good level of quality, I
shudder to think of what might come unglued in the universe.