Re: PGDN author workflow proposal

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

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

//Magnus

________________________________

From: pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Gevik babakhani
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:34 PM
To: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)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.