RE: dispensing with documentation reviews

[Rose -dot- Wilcox -at- aps -dot- com]

<<
Because our developers often do all the testing of "early release"
software outside the formal QA cycle, it's possible that management sees
no practical difference in the writers doing their own cleanup and
proofing of an "early release" document. I haven't been able to
persuasively articulate a difference so far. (Our "early release"
customers usually expect some software features to be incomplete because
they're getting the product
early.)
>>

My first take on that is that there *is* no difference.  The business
risks of sending out code that is not properly QA'd include that the
software will not work appropriately, leading to all kinds of negative
outcomes (bad customer experiences, lack of repeat business).  There
must be some reason in your field that your management has decided that
risk is okay or worth it, in order to make deadlines.  The risk for the
not properly reviewed doc is the same -- the docs won't "work" properly.


<<
What are my options for appropriate responses? Am I wrong, or
unrealistic, to take a hard line on this? I've expressed my discomfort
with unreviewed documents going out the door. I also plan to review our
standard licensing agreement ASAP to make sure we disclaim the
documentation as an express warranty.
>>

Not your call I think, unless you are executive management.  As a
technical writer who is sometimes mid-management, my only job is to
document risks and ensure the exec level knows.  And then carry out
orders.  As long as no one is going to die or be placed in jeopardy from
the poor documentation, I would do it.  If I felt public health was in
danger, I might refuse and take the hit up to and including
unemployment.  

Otherwise, my only other concern would be personal liability.  Mostly
worker bees don't get sued for such things, but I would make sure I did
not have any official sign off on incomplete documentation.  Here
writers can use our own digital signature to digitally sign "for" the
official signer, but I won't even do that unless I have a email trail
showing I had permission from the official signer to do so, even though
policy states I could document phone call permission.  

Rosie

"MMS <apsc.com>" made the following annotations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- NOTICE ---
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or printout.  Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of this e-mail.  Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.

==============================================================================


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION: RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward
in Help authoring technology, featuring Word 2003 support, Content
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo

>From a single set of Word documents, create online Help and printed
documentation with ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 7 Professional, a new yearly
subscription service offering free updates and upgrades, support, and more.
http://www.doctohelp.com

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.