Make sure SSP language is clear and has enough explanation

[brittag]

In order to help readers of our cloud.gov SSP understand the content with ease, we (as the cloud.gov team) should check our use of product-related jargon for consistency (such as "cloud.gov" vs. "Cloud Foundry") and provide supporting explanations in the right places in the final Word document.

This means we'll need to do approximately the following:

• View the doc (hosted on MAX.gov) and read the comments that point out confusing aspects.
• Plan how to address them in the YAML files that generate the doc, so that they end up in the right places in the rendered Word doc.
• Update the YAML files (and make the same updates in the official Word doc, then upload to MAX.gov) to be more consistent and have those explanatory notes in the right places. (For reference: how to get a copy of Word at 18F.)
• Document these consistency decisions to help us stick with them for future updates of the files. We might document these in the cloud.gov content style guide - which could become a public style guide in this repository somewhere, rather than a team-only Google Doc.

Acceptance criteria:

• [ ] We've updated our YAML files and uploaded a new version of the Word doc to fully address these reader comments.
• [x] We have some documentation explaining how to maintain clarity of language for these aspects.

cc @clovett3

[brittag]

Update based on consultation with team: I should focus on addressing the comments that point out consistency/clarity issues in the Word doc, and I should just keep notes on what I'm doing so that we can port these changes back to the YAML files eventually. The Word doc has a deadline coming up (the 21st).

[afeld]

/cc https://github.com/opencontrol/fedramp-templater/issues/13

[brittag]

I've put two documents in hopefully a reasonable Google Drive folder (the SSP Drafts folder):

• My edited version (with track changes on).
• Notes about what I changed and what I think still could use more review! (Including notes from the feedback meeting that encouraged these polish edits.)

[mogul]

For these two:

• Plan how to address them in the YAML files that generate the doc, so that they end up in the right places in the rendered Word doc.
• Update the YAML files (and make the same updates in the official Word doc, then upload to MAX.gov) to be more consistent and have those explanatory notes in the right places. (For reference: how to get a copy of Word at 18F.)

We're not going to worry about this now, but rather plan to implement a new "linting" function in CM to help us curry changes upstream to the YAML later.

• Document these consistency decisions to help us stick with them for future updates of the files. We might document these in the cloud.gov content style guide - which could become a public style guide in this repository somewhere, rather than a team-only Google Doc.

Britta moved the style guide into the cg-product repository now.