Re: "Linux is now not supported"

[Ned Bedinger <doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com>]

I have to assume that I, playing myself as the techwriter in this 
virtual staged scenario, understand how integral Linux support is to 
this product.  The question seems designed to elicit my firefighting 
response, but my 15 years of documentation work has taught me to temper 
any impulse to rush major tasks--too much can go wrong with the tools, 
too much goes unnoticed that needs notice, and I would be assuming 
inappropriate responsibility by accepting more work than I can 
reasonably complete in these circumstances. These considerations guide 
my opinion of how to proceed.  I will clarify just how this affects my 
response.

So, at 4 PM on a critical Friday, with the final build scheduled for 
tomorrow, I learn that a major change has gone down and my documentation 
products are now wrong.  My response in the first 15 minutes would be to 
draw my own conclusion (if my role is allowed to provide advice), and be 
ready to offer it, but my primary response would be to make every effort 
to contact my manager, pass along the news of the sudden change, and 
follow whatever instruction I get in reply.

The question doesn't really allow me any wiggle room, else I would 
assert my expectation that the documentation was frozen, by team 
agreement, once the final draft was signed off. If this freeze agreement 
was in its proper place in the question, then I would be with Kevin in 
adding the change to the release notes, or writing up a concise 
statement or summary to include in the distribution.  As with all frozen 
docs I own, I would also plan to add the new support to the 
already-begun list of changes to be included in documentation for the 
next release.

Gene's rigorous management of scarce tech writing resources is 
heartening.  Cheers :-)


Ned Bedinger
doc -at- edwordsmith -dot- com



Gene Kim-Eng wrote: