Clarify approval guidelines for dev doc changes

What does this MR do?

The current guidelines for development documentation changes may be confusing. In the most rigorous reading, it implies that the VP of Development must approve all "significant" changes or proposals, without defining what's significant.

This MR is intended to clarify the distinctions.

Criteria in the MR:

• The TW team, on its own, should be able to make "Trivial changes"
  • Fix typos
  • Include clarifying links
  • Edit per our doc style guide

As long as these changes have "no material impact" to the text, the TW team will revise these MRs, using their own processes (where one TW authors the MR, and a different TW approves the MR; either can merge)

Example 1: !48197 (merged) includes a substantial number of fixes, replacing future with present tense, as language to avoid. As these changes have no material impact on the content, the TW team shall make these changes on their own.

Example 2: In contrast, "stylistic" changes aren't always clear. For example, the changes made for "improved clarity" in this MR: !47813 (merged) are not straightforward changes for typos, clarifying links, or edits per our doc style guide. In that case, we'll include appropriate peer developers in the review.

More MR Criteria:

When the MR is limited to a single group

In some cases, MRs to doc/development files affect only one group, such as groupproduct analytics. In that case,

• The TW team includes in the review (unless already done)
  • Engineering managers (or equivalent, such as staff-level developers)
  • In some cases, the MR is authored by an EM or a staff-level developer, which itself serves as a self-review at this level

Example 3: This MR for ~"group::import" includes dedicated discussions on development guidelines clearly limited to that group.

When the MR adds to or modifies an existing process

• The TW team includes in the review (unless already done)
  • Appropriate peer developer reviewers
  • Engineering managers (or equivalent, such as staff-level developers)
  • In some cases, the MR is authored by an EM or a staff-level developer, which itself serves as a self-review at this level

More extensive MR criteria:

• If the proposed change creates a new process, or changes an existing process in a significant way
  • The TW may consult with the EM (or equivalent). If needed, then they would "bring in" the VP of development for a final approval

Related issues

Author's checklist (required)

• Follow the Documentation Guidelines and Style Guide.
• If you have Developer permissions or higher:
  • Ensure that the product tier badge is added to doc's h1.
  • Apply the documentation label, plus:
    • The corresponding DevOps stage and group labels, if applicable.
    • development guidelines when changing docs under doc/development/*, CONTRIBUTING.md, or README.md.
    • development guidelines and Documentation guidelines when changing docs under development/documentation/*.
    • development guidelines and Description templates (.gitlab/*) when creating/updating issue and MR description templates.
  • Assign the designated Technical Writer.

Do not add the feature, frontend, backend, ~"bug", or database labels if you are only updating documentation. These labels will cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.

When applicable:

• Update the permissions table.
• Link docs to and from the higher-level index page, plus other related docs where helpful.
• Add the product tier badge accordingly.
• Add GitLab's version history note(s).
• Add/update the feature flag section.

Review checklist

All reviewers can help ensure accuracy, clarity, completeness, and adherence to the Documentation Guidelines and Style Guide.

1. Primary Reviewer

• Review by a code reviewer or other selected colleague to confirm accuracy, clarity, and completeness. This can be skipped for minor fixes without substantive content changes.

2. Technical Writer

• Technical writer review. If not requested for this MR, must be scheduled post-merge. To request for this MR, assign the writer listed for the applicable DevOps stage.
  • Ensure docs metadata are present and up-to-date.
  • Ensure Technical Writing and documentation are added.
  • Add the corresponding docs:: scoped label.
  • If working on UI text, add the corresponding UI Text scoped label.
  • Add twdoing when starting work on the MR.
  • Add twfinished if Technical Writing team work on the MR is complete but it remains open.

For more information about labels, see Technical Writing workflows - Labels.

For suggestions that you are confident don't need to be reviewed, change them locally and push a commit directly to save others from unneeded reviews. For example:

• Clear typos, like this is a typpo.
• Minor issues, like single quotes instead of double quotes, Oxford commas, and periods.

For more information, see our documentation on Merging a merge request.

3. Maintainer

1. Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the above reviews. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.
2. Ensure a release milestone is set.
3. If there has not been a technical writer review, create an issue for one using the Doc Review template.