Kiki, what about minor edits by staff to fix things like typos, formatting, grammar, etc? Are those also approved internally, with a second-party review? I find that hard to believe.
Speaking of staff, the Meet the team article doesn't mention Lucas Siebert as a staff member. Neither does his profile, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/user/lsiebert/
Something else that has been bothering me are the consequences for contributors who are not compliant with the rules. This is copied from the Article review and approval guidelines:
Review guidelines compliance
Creating content that is consistent, accurate, and relevant is important, but it's not the only step in the process. To make sure our content maintains its quality over time, we need everyone involved to understand and follow the review and approval processes. Our staff will be keeping an eye on how well we're following the new guidelines to make sure everything stays on track.
To retain your Knowledge Base Reviewer permission as a contributor:
- Adhere to the above review guidelines.
- Adhere to the CPG.
We also strongly encourage all Knowledge Base Reviewers to review at least three (3) article revisions per month.
Your Knowledge Base Reviewer permission as a reviewer may be revoked if you self-approve en-US content. Please see guidelines below:
- 1st violation: A private, written warning from SUMO staff, with clarity of violation and consequences of continued behavior.
- 2nd violation: A second private, written warning from SUMO staff, with clarity of violation and consequences of continued behavior.
- 3rd violation: A private, written message and your permission as a reviewer will be revoked. If you wish to regain the permission, you are required to wait at least six (6) months before requesting.
By embracing this approach, we encourage teamwork, ensure the best possible content, and create an environment where everyone's expertise contributes to our success.
The section is aimed at contributors. Shouldn't there be similar "consequences" that apply to staff for repeated violations, including losing approval permission? If not, what are the consequences for staff non-compliance? In any case, that section of the rules sounds threatening and somewhat insulting to long-time contributors. Mozilla Support depends on volunteers for many of the updates to existing content and some new content.
Kiki, what about minor edits by staff to fix things like typos, formatting, grammar, etc? Are those also approved internally, with a second-party review? I find that hard to believe.
Speaking of staff, the [[Meet the team]] article doesn't mention Lucas Siebert as a staff member. Neither does his profile, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/user/lsiebert/
Something else that has been bothering me are the consequences for contributors who are not compliant with the rules. This is copied from the [[Article review and approval guidelines]]:
----
==Review guidelines compliance==
Creating content that is consistent, accurate, and relevant is important, but it's not the only step in the process. To make sure our content maintains its quality over time, we need everyone involved to understand and follow the review and approval processes. Our staff will be keeping an eye on how well we're following the new guidelines to make sure everything stays on track.
To retain your Knowledge Base Reviewer permission as a contributor:
*Adhere to the above review guidelines.
*Adhere to the CPG.
We also strongly encourage all Knowledge Base Reviewers to review at least three (3) article revisions per month.
Your Knowledge Base Reviewer permission as a reviewer may be revoked if you self-approve en-US content. Please see guidelines below:
*'''1st violation''': A private, written warning from SUMO staff, with clarity of violation and consequences of continued behavior.
*'''2nd violation''': A second private, written warning from SUMO staff, with clarity of violation and consequences of continued behavior.
*'''3rd violation''': A private, written message and your permission as a reviewer will be revoked. If you wish to regain the permission, you are required to wait at least six (6) months before requesting.
By embracing this approach, we encourage teamwork, ensure the best possible content, and create an environment where everyone's expertise contributes to our success.
-----
The section is aimed at contributors. Shouldn't there be similar "consequences" that apply to staff for repeated violations, including losing approval permission? If not, what are the consequences for staff non-compliance? In any case, that section of the rules sounds threatening and somewhat insulting to long-time contributors. Mozilla Support depends on volunteers for many of the updates to existing content and some new content.
{note}Note: We understand there may be some situations that require staff to self-approve content. Please provide a rationale for skipping a content review in the SUMO revision note.{/note}
