Review process » History » Revision 10
Revision 9 (Kurt Gerber, 22 Dec 2015 12:04) → Revision 10/12 (Lukas Vonlanthen, 17 May 2016 14:14)
h1. Review workflow
{{thumbnail(userroles_reviewprocess.png, size=1200)}}
*(to be revised)...
The workflow when submitting a new Questionnaire or editing an existing one is as follows:
h2. Create
|_.Create | Edit | Review | Publish |
* Any A logged in +user+ User A can create a new Questionnaire.
* A welcome notice explains the workflow, takes the user to the first section of the Questionnaire.
h3. Questionnaire status:
* -
h3. Available actions:
* -
h2. Edit
| Create |_.Edit | Review | Publish |
* A Questionnaire object is created when saving the first section of a new or edited Questionnaire.
* Edit of start editing an existing Questionnaire: one.
* Only When he does *[save]* his changes, it creates a +compiler+ can edit new version (with the existing public Questionnaires *(?)* code if available) with status *@draft@*.
* Editing a public Questionnaire creates a new version.
* The User becomes user can add other users (editors) which can make edits to the +compiler+ of the Questionnaire.
* draft. While editing a section of user is working on the Questionnaire, draft, the entire Questionnaire version is locked so no for other editors can make concurrent changes.
h3. Questionnaire status: to prevent conflicting edits.
* *@draft@*
h3. Available actions:
*[Submit]*: The +compiler+ original user (User A) can submit *[submit]* the Questionnaire to be reviewed. The version which receives status of the Questionnaire changes to @submitted@. Reviewers are notified, see below for how reviewers are selected.
*@pending@*.
* Permissions: +compiler+
* Notifications: +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
*[Invite Editors]*: The +compiler+ No more edits can invite other users be made to work on the Questionnaire. Invited users will be +editors+.
version.
* Permissions: +compiler+
* Notifications: +compiler+, +editors+
*[Change Compiler]*: The +compiler+ can assign an +editor+ as the moderators are notified that there is a new compiler of the Questionnaire. The original compiler becomes an editor.
pending version.
* Permissions: +compiler+
* Notifications: +compiler+, +editors+
h2. Review
| Create | Edit |_.Review | Publish |
h3. Questionnaire status:
* *@submitted@*
h3. Available actions:
*[Approve]*: The +reviewer+ approves A moderator reviews the Questionnaire version and submits it decides what to be published. do next:
* Review decision *[publish]*: The status of the Questionnaire changes to @reviewed@. Publishers are notified, see below for how publishers are selected.
* Permissions: +reviewer+
* Notifications: +publisher+, +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
*[Revise]*: The +reviewer+ finds that some content of ok, the Questionnaire needs to be revised. The version receives status of the Questionnaire changes to @draft@.
*@approved@*.
* Permissions: +reviewer+
* Notifications: +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
*[Reject]*: The +reviewer+ can completely reject a Questionnaire if the content is obviously not appropriate. The status of the Questionnaire changes to @rejected@.
* Permissions: +reviewer+
* Notifications: +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
*[Assign Reviewer]*: The +WOCAT secretariat+ can assign an additional reviewer for the Questionnaire.
* Permissions: +WOCAT secretariat+
* Notifications: +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
h2. Publish
| Create | Edit | Review |_.Publish |
h3. Questionnaire status:
* *@reviewed@*
h3. Available actions:
*[Approve]*: The +publisher+ approves the Questionnaire and publishes it. The status of the Questionnaire changes to @public@. The approved version is inserted in Elasticsearch (replacing older ones).
* Any old version receives status *@inactive@*.
* Permissions: +publisher+
All editors are notified.
* Notifications: +publisher+, +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
*[Revise]*: Review decision *[reject]*: The +publisher+ finds that some content of changes are very wrong, the Questionnaire needs to be revised. The version receives status of the Questionnaire changes to @draft@.
*@rejected@*.
* Permissions: +publisher+
* Notifications: +publisher+, +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
*[Assign Publisher]*: The +WOCAT secretariat+ can assign an additional publisher for the Questionnaire.
* Permissions: +WOCAT secretariat+
* Notifications: +publisher+, +reviewer+, +compiler+, +editors+
h2. How All editors are reviewers and publishers selected?
This covers how new @submitted@ Questionnaires are assigned to +reviewers+ and new @reviewed@ Questionnaires are assigned to +publishers+.
* Rules can be added to automatically assign Questionnaire to their +reviewers+ or +publishers+. These rules are based on: notified.
* Project: All Questionnaires with a certain project are assigned Review decision *[revise]*: Corrections need to a specific +reviewer+ or +publisher+.
* Country: All Questionnaires with a certain country are assigned to a specific +reviewer+ or +publisher+.
<pre>
# Pseudo-code be made, the status of such a rule:
if project == 'Project XY' and country in ['Country A', 'Country B']:
reviewer = user_A
</pre>
* If no rule applies for a Questionnaire, they are assigned the +WOCAT secretariat+, which can either review / publish themselves or assign them to other users. _This version is the current workaround until the proper review process is in place._
h2. UNCCD flagging
UNCCD users (focal points) need set back to possibility to flag existing WOCAT Questionnaires as "UNCCD Best Practice".
*@draft@*.
* When registering, UNCCD users select the country for which they All editors are the focal point.
notified.
* +WOCAT secretariat+ checks if the user is indeed the current focal point for the specified country based on an up-to-date list of focal points provided by UNCCD.
* If the focal point for a country changes, UNCCD immediately informs the WOCAT secretariat so the focal point The users can be changed.
* UNCCD focal points can flag WOCAT questionnaires as "UNCCD Best Practice". They can only make changes to this for Questionnaires in countries for which they are the focal point.
* Flagging automatically creates a new @submitted@ version of the Questionnaire which will go through the usual review cycle.
* Focal points can only remove the UNCCD flag of Questionnaires which he flagged himself. *(?)*
questionnaire again (review procedure starts again)
*Missing*: "revise" decisions need to be logged somehow. It should be possible to pass messages from user to user (eg. users submitting comment for the reviewer or reviewer submitting comment for the editors when "revise").