> > -> the review process is informal and free-weeling: > > - no 'minimum number of reviews needed' > > - instead there's a minimum number of days (3 for the Dutch team) you > > have to wait for comments before going to the next stage > > (RFR->LCFC->aproved, RFR or LCFC might repeat) along with the agreement > > that ongoing discussion blocks going to the next stage. > > At this point I think we must to introduce a new step. I work with a > small translators group and I can't know if other translators has > reviewed my document. We must have a "reviewer counter">=1 before we > have the document aproved! This, according to the specs we summarized, should be customizable by team coordinators. The need we identified for the review process is allowing team coordinators to: -define the minimum number of reviews for a given type (and length) of documents -give more "importance" to some reviewers over others. In short, some team coordinators might consider that a complete review by an experienced translators has more value than a review by a beginner....or enfore that at least one experienced team member does a review for the review process to be complete Not all teams have the same work methods and we don't want the system to enfore work methods to the team. Of course, we can safely assume that the most common setting for the review process will be "number of reviews > N".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature