Re: document reviewing ideas

[arcfide@sacrideo.us (Aaron W. Hsu)]

Dear Mats:

Your troubles with reviewing reminded me of a friend who recently used a
combination of GitHub with DocBook to elicit feedback from folks. They
were all computer scientists, so your mileage may very. 

Basically, he distributed a paper copy, a PDF copy, and the
source. Reviewers could submit responses to him on paper, in PDF
annotations, or in the source. Source remarks went under a remark tag
that could be rendered either in the document, or removed from
rendering, so that you could have a document either with or without the
inline remarks. Additionally, reviewers could submit direct GitHub
issues to address particular problems with the document that didn't fit
in a remark. Alternative versions could be delivered in the form of a
branch for review or a pull request. Any annotations or notes received
outside of the GitHub infrastructure was recorded as either a remark
inline or as a new issue, possibly tied to different versions. 

The benefit was that all the issues were kept attached and related to
the versions of the document that mattered, and could be easily removed
when they no longer mattered. Discussions could be kept in order, and
many people could work on reviewing at the same time. 

However, I'm not sure how well this would scale to what you are doing. 

-- 
Aaron W. Hsu | arcfide@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
לֵ֤ב חֲכָמִים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית אֵ֔בֶל וְלֵ֥ב כְּסִילִ֖ים בְּבֵ֥ית שִׂמְחָֽה׃