> Looks interesting. Looking at the DDTSS you have the Translations and > Authoritive Reviewing, but Approval is handled collectively. No-one > authoritive, once a certain number of people approve it, it's done. I > don't think you mention that case. > > I beleive that the process strongly depends on what kind of things are > being translated. Complete documents require a very different approach > to say package descriptions. Actually, that process was enforced by the DDTP itself and then you logically reproduced that mechanism in DDTSS. Indeed, this is one of the reasons for some teams (namely fr and for some parts es) are not completely keen with the former DDTP processes and actually also one of the reasons for which the french team does not work on the DDTP right now: it does not fit our processes. The logical consquence is to conclude that we should avoid enforcing workflow processes through the infrastructure. It should be flexible enough for each project coordinator and each language team to define its own workflow processes. I would say that the process currently used in DDTSS should be a possibility in the design (ie a kind of collective approval by having a minimum number of reviewers approving a iven work for it to be validated)...but up to the project team manager (a project team being defined as the instersection of a project (DDTP) and a translation team (language teams). There is one project team manager per project per team.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature