Like many here, I'm sure, my company has a person that acts as liason between development and most other areas of the company, as well as our clients. Most communication regarding new releases, fixes, known issues, etc. goes through this person.
However, because this person is not a developer and not deeply involved in the development projects, sometimes what developers submit for dissemination is edited for brevity or simplicity, and in the process, key details or subtleties are lost.
I've been pushing for a review process that includes the author of the original document, whatever it was, before the material is released. Among other things this would, I feel, allow the person with the greatest technical knowledge about what's being talked about (the one who actually wrote the code for the new program, feature or fix) to weigh in on anything that may have been oversimplified or been given a factual error by the editing process.
The person handling the communication, for their part, feels that the problem is education; the person is relatively new to the company and doesn't have extensive experience with all of the software applications and other products that development produces and supports. The person feels that as they gain this experience through training and reading the material that comes through their hands, the problem will resolve itself. They also feel that the back-and-forth would waste time.
I think there's merit both ways. What do you guys think?