Re: PGDN author workflow proposal

Hi,

This seems good to me. But there is one hole in the discussion - how is *editing* handled.

Yes about the editing. This I discuss later if it is okay. I also have a proposal for this.

 What I'd like to see in this case is the old verision still being published on the site until a "publiser" approves the edited article, at which point it will replace the one that was on the site already. Can this be done?

 Of course it is also what I am going to propose in the next discussion.

Also - what does it take to create templates, and who does that? System admins?

To my opinion there are not that many templates to use. At max ten. I was thinking about:

mini-howto,

howto,

article (like a story or paper) ,

tutorial (like a bigger more organized howto),

a TODO template,

a Did you know template like “Did you know you can inherit tables in PostgreSQL” where it would show howto do that is three maybe four lines.

The templates are also a point of discussion for later to decide op on.

Regards,

Gevik.

//Magnus

 

---

From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Gevik babakhani
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:34 PM
To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: [pgsql-www] PGDN author workflow proposal

Dear All,

 

While the development of the PGDN site advances, I would like to start a discussion about an acceptable workflow process regarding authoring content on the future PGDN.

(And here of course, I must quote Dave: not that we have an “army of technical authors ready to let loose” on the PGDN, but who knows “what dreams may come” :-) )

 

Proposed workflow:

 

- Fact: Only system administrators are able to create/edit/delete the treeview categories.

- Fact: Only the publishers can approve a proposed article.

 

- The “normal” authors are able to write articles based on some template. (tutorial, mini-howto, howto, story, interview, etc, etc)

- After an author is confident about the content and decides that it is ready to be published, then he requests “a version” of the content to be published under a topic/category. (Up until this moment nothing gets into the main treeview where every PGDN visitor can see)

 

- The user with “publisher” permission reviews the content. When he decides that this content is okay (that it is not just another “select * from” article) to be placed inside the main treeview, he then, approves the article.

- after this point the backed PGDN process extracts the article to be places in CVS and treeview and so on.

 

The workflow above will make sure, the PGDN does not become a blog or contain redundant information also ensuring the information that is approved accurate.

Issues to think about: Who gets do decide whether an article is good enough for the PGDN?

 

These are just functional points which I think are very important to spend a moment or two to think about.

Please let me know.

 

PS: please do not worry about content revision and versioning hence this I intent to discussed later.

 

Regards,

Gevik.