Extension talk:Evaluation WikiFlow

Enrico, Yaron (of semantic forms) pointed me to your extension when I mentioned that I was dreaming of "semantic flagged revisions". This looks quite useful. I will do some testing on our site and let you know what I discover. One idea, right off the bat: assignments to review or certify are likely to be done, not only by individuals, but by departments or usergroups. Which is to say, in my large organization, a person might not be assigned to review a page, but a department might be assigned to review a page.

...but, I'd still want to track which person in which department reviewed each page. This will help in identifying key performers, playing the "shame and blame game" and allowing an individual to submit something for review without having to know which element of dark matter collected the mass of their product as the flung it into the black hole of bureaucratic approvals.

...which brings me to my next idea: multiple approvals. I suspect that I can design my form to have categories like: forMarketingApproval; passedMarketingApproval; forFinanceApproval; passedFinanceApproval... etc. Does that seem reasonable? CWinDC 02:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Both proposals seems reasonable to me. For the first one - a person might not be assigned to review a page, but a department might be assigned to review a page - this would mean to extend the permission check and make it dependant on a particular set of review forms. This, even if it is a nice idea for the future work - it is not easy to do actually. The second one - multiple approvals. I suspect that I can design my form to have categories like: forMarketingApproval; passedMarketingApproval; forFinanceApproval; passedFinanceApproval... seems to be realizable. If you assign a category you enable a review form, by changing it you change the form (multiple review forms are not supported at the moment). In this way you could be able to setup a dynamic review workflow (but I never tryed ;) ). Finally, sorry for this very very late reply, I missed the start of the discussion page! I will try to be more reactive in the future. --EnricoDaga 11:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)