1 files changed, 36 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/guide/src/workflow.md b/guide/src/workflow.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..13370a13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/guide/src/workflow.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Workflow
+
+## Basic Editing Workflow and Bots
+
+Both human editors and bots should have edits go through the same API, with
+humans using either the default web interface, integrations, or client
+software.
+
+The normal workflow is to create edits (or updates, merges, deletions) on
+individual entities. Individual changes are bundled into an "edit group" of
+related edits (eg, correcting authorship info for multiple works related to a
+single author). When ready, the editor would "submit" the edit group for
+review. During the review period, human editors vote and bots can perform
+automated checks. During this period the editor can make tweaks if necessary.
+After some fixed time period (72 hours?) with no changes and no blocking
+issues, the edit group would be auto-accepted if no merge conflicts have
+be created by other edits to the same entities. This process balances editing
+labor (reviews are easy, but optional) against quality (cool-down period makes
+it easier to detect and prevent spam or out-of-control bots). More
+sophisticated roles and permissions could allow some certain humans and bots to
+push through edits more rapidly (eg, importing new works from a publisher API).
+
+Bots need to be tuned to have appropriate edit group sizes (eg, daily batches,
+instead of millions of works in a single edit) to make human QA review and
+reverts managable.
+
+Data progeny and source references are captured in the edit metadata, instead
+of being encoded in the entity data model itself. In the case of importing
+external databases, the expectation is that special-purpose bot accounts
+are be used, and tag timestamps and external identifiers in the edit metadata.
+Human editors would leave edit messages to clarify their sources.
+
+A style guide (wiki) and discussion forum would be hosted as separate
+stand-alone services for editors to propose projects and debate process or
+scope changes. These services should have unified accounts and logins (oauth?)
+to have consistent account IDs across all mediums.