TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Making publishable docs part of the definition of done makes sense if
the software actually ships at the end of each sprint (which usually
means SaaS).
Otherwise I'd make the definition of done just that docs has a plan
and has signed off. My most extreme example of why was a case where it
took a developer maybe half a day to update a major open-source
component of the product but it took me three more to document the
insanely complex process of migrating existing installations to that
update. Same for QA.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Rosalma Arcelay <rosie -at- cpanel -dot- net> wrote:
> ... Part of each team's definition of done is having documentation thatâs ready to publish. In my team, I work closely with the developers and with QA to make sure that our docs are comprehensive, accurate, and are appropriate for the audience (our users). Because docs is part of the definition of done, our developers factor reviews into the overall workload and story estimates (and if they donât, we kindly remind them). To us, docs don't âhold upâ development because the documentation is a part of it. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
