TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Resolving edits From:Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> Date:Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:51:34 MST
If you equate the writer/reviewer relationship to an
author/editor relationship, then the writer/author will usually
have the final say.
It sounds to me that your SQA person is maybe a closet editor,
and that she (oops, or he) is using her/his position to
demonstrate her/his perceived expertise.
The role of SQA (according to Watts Humphrey, a recognized
expert in the field) is to review products and processes for
completeness and adherence to standards. The level at which your
SQA person is "reviewing" your documents appears to be outside
the scope of her/his responsibility. [Note: Her/his responsibilities
as defined by your company may very well include this level of
detail...but it usually doesn't.]
The types of editorial changes that the SQA person would
typically make would be directed more at content (i.e., you
left out the part about some new or revised feature, or perhaps
you are going into more detail in a certain area than is necessary, or
that you need to provide more detail in some area). Rewriting
sentences or making grammatical changes is *not* a typical SQA
If he/she is doing it because he/she likes to do it, then it's a
favor. You can appreciate it and say thank you for the
suggestions, but you are not under any obligation to incorporate
And that's my opinion.
=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
=*= "Unless otherwise stated, all comments are my own. =*=
=*= I am not representing my employer in any way." =*=
Charles Webster <cwebster -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> asks--
How do you handle the situation in which one reviewer (out
of a total of six) who insists that his/her changes/edits
_must_ be incorporated in to the current revision?
I have one review team member who is adamant that
his/her edits absolutely must be incorporated into the
current revision, regardless of the opinions of the other
team members and myself. He/She is the "software
quality assurance" engineer and as such insists that the
quality of the manual is within his/her purview.
My position is (and has been for the last twelve years of
being a tech writer) that I will accommodate a reviewer's
edits "within reason" and that as the writer _I_ have the
final say in what goes in the manuals.