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:document review process From:"Tamminga, Ernie" <et -at- DSC -dot- COM> Date:Mon, 12 May 1997 14:51:22 -0700
It's also the case that in any self-respecting engineering organization,
software engineers regularly do formal "code reviews" for one another,
and often other rituals called "walkthroughs" , integration reviews,
etc. None of these is interpreted as a suggestion that the developer
whose code is being reviewed is inaccurate. . . if anything, it's a way
of showing RESPECT for one another's work!
Although technical work is done by populations made up of a
disproportionate number of lone-wolves, it is still in the final
analysis a communal enterprise.
--------
Ernie Tamminga
Director, InfoEngineering
Digital Sound Corporation
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kathleen Padova [SMTP:kpadova -at- ASICENTRAL -dot- COM]
>Sent: Monday, May 12, 1997 3:31 PM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: Re[2]: Purpose of document review process?
>
>This reminds me of the looks I got one time when I asked about sending drafts
>around for review. "What do you mean, your work needs to be checked? Isn't
>your
>writing accurate?"
>
>This could either be a whole heck of a lotta trust <yeah, right> or a
>potentially dangerous situation. Fortunately I got out of it by pointing out
>the programmers habit of changing screens and adding features at whim and not
>even telling the project manager about it. Definitely a sign of greater
>problems; but I wasn't about to be the sacrificial lamb.
>
>--Kathleen
>kpadova -at- millstar -dot- com
>
> TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
>to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
> to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
> Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
>browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
