Define website content approval/review process

[EliseKa]

Description

We could either review the website content in staging or in GC Articles.

• [x] Understand the downsides of reviewing content in GC Articles compared to staging, and vice versa

• in GC Articles, reviewers cannot submit comments, whereas they can in staging

• the preview mode in GC Articles only allows to preview the one page we're drafting (we can't navigate the website as would allow Staging)

• [x] Get input from approvers: @leannelabelle and @yaelberger-commits

• [ ] Update content strategy with the agreed-upon review process (Élise)

[EliseKa]

Shared with the team our needs so far: we need to be able to navigate the website in preview mode so that we can review changes made to navigation.

The devs are still figuring out what's possible are in terms of preview options

[EliseKa]

We had a demo of the preview feature from the GC Articles team on Jan 20. They're still working on it!

To consider when drafting the publishing workflow:

• translation options
• permission/role definition
• version management and comments
• when should someone press "publish" (definition of done)

[EliseKa]

No progress made on this card recently. I'd like to have a chat with Kate and the translators to inform the review process - they're currently working on the GC Articles content.

[yaelberger-commits]

Needs priority and estimation

[yaelberger-commits]

@EliseKa and @leannelabelle we're iceboxing this as it is under the Growth team to define this process, but we would like to be looped back in once a process for reviewing and approving content in GC Articles is in place