# data[].attributes.body
This is the big one! The gap in understanding between the instructional teams and the field teams obviously led to some major pain and suffering. Even as a stakeholder, I felt uncertain, sometimes, about what the rules were and what was/wasn't going to be acceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
It would be great to have clear guidelines (before we start looking for passages) about the subjects we can and cannot cover. A list of the subjects that are not approved  might be a way to start.

# data[].attributes.body
I found myself regularly having to review after hours, and sometimes I was unable to review in the window given, had to ping Nora + the editors of the text the next day to alert them I'd left (late-breaking) comments, which I know was disruptive, given the waterflow workflow, and the need to redirect passage writers.

# data[].attributes.body
Obviously this was the biggest challenge of the project - not realizing that CA wanted to take a slower and more incremental approach than we were hoping.

# data[].attributes.body
I frequently found myself wanting to talk about something live, rather than leaving notes about it, or to ask questions, have more of a backing and forthing with the editors.

# data[].attributes.body
The checklist was created to help everyone plan their time and get a view into what was coming, but because the reviews frequently shifted during the week it sometimes made the checklist void, but also not wanting to clog peoples' inboxes with updates and emails. Not sure if there's a better way to view review schedules.

# data[].attributes.body
It's not always clear when something is a final decision or required change vs. a suggestion or a decision that may change.

# data[].attributes.body
I tended to "stay in my lane" in terms of giving feedback, but that lane sometimes felt too narrow to be helpful, especially in terms of passages that focused on antiracism and social justice.

# data[].attributes.body
This was super helpful to get timely feedback, but as time went on fewer and fewer people attended.

# data[].attributes.body
The disconnect between the positive, supportive feedback we were getting from the Schomburg Center the decisions that were being made internally.

# data[].attributes.body
Having a clear system of approved, approved with caveat, and not approved gives more clarity to feedback

# data[].attributes.body
I know the team was hoping that by sending us those email alerts on Mondays, letting us know what would be sent later in the week, it would ease the pinch with the quick turnarounds, and we’d earmark time on our calendars for the reviews—the best-laid plans! This was the right thing to try, but it didn't necessarily help with the time crunch and tight turnarounds for stakeholders with busy meeting schedules. But still, it was the right thing to do/try.

# data[].attributes.body
Having these categories was helpful, but there was some uncomfortable murkiness between the "approved with caveat" and  "not approved" categories that made it hard to pick—for me anyway.   Categories, as ref:

•   Approved = OK to move this pitch/passage forward with writer.

Approved with Caveat = Minor issues with the pitch/passage that need to be addressed, but OK to move forward with writer. No need to see it again until next round.

Not Approved = Minor/Major issues with the pitch/passage that require a revised or new version from the writer. Needs to be sent through Stakeholder Review again with adjustments before moving on to next round.

# data[].attributes.body
Being able to see what others said, and add comments, was really helpful. However, sometimes one would want to follow up on a comment and discuss/resolve it, and we didn't have a great way to handle that, especially one that is efficient.

# data[].attributes.body
The weekly emails on what to review and reminders were very helpful to being able to stay on track and (usually) provide timely feedback

# data[].attributes.body
Having reviews that might happen but not always guaranteed - such as authenticity/sensitivity, CRB, and sometimes a "let me just check with X person" makes it really hard to design a schedule (this does not work in wrike) and makes it tough to stick to the schedule you had promised.

# data[].attributes.body
The disconnect between what we were hearing in the antiracism trainings, info about white dominant culture, etc., and how we were making decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
Having so many rounds of review (stakeholder, A&E, Assessment, Authenticity/Sensitivity, CRB) was a LOT of feedback to organize, review, and respond to. Many perspectives is great, but really inefficient.

# data[].attributes.body
Texts where next steps were not straightforward, immediately clear often got taken to email, or to a discussion with Jon, Charlotte, Nadia, Suki, and I, and the editors not present. This placed the burden on Charlotte and Jon to have to translate (often tough news, decisions they didn't agree with) back to the team, and that was both unfair and likely led to occasional "telephone tag" casualties, distortion of the message(s), not through any fault of theirs, but just an inevitable result of this imperfect approach, as well as editors not having as much info as leads did.

# data[].attributes.body
Liked being able to see others' comments so that I could either just +1 or not repeat what others had said.

# data[].attributes.body
Nora's organization of the batches was so helpful to editors. Can't thank her enough!!!

# data[].attributes.body
When reviewing, I sometimes craved a live conversation, particularly when the feedback was more nuanced.

# data[].attributes.body
Not sure if you are looking for image feedback, but did wonder whether we really needed to have stakeholders weigh in on all of the images. Wonder if there's a process next time where the team flags any high priority images for review but for things like the bagels piece that are more cut and dry, those wouldn't need stakeholder review.

# data[].attributes.body
The stakeholders' comments were clear and helpful.

# data[].attributes.body
We were often providing feedback we knew would be upsetting, or disappointing, or frustrating, or notifying the team that something would have to go to the content review board. It was really hard to know that we were inflicting pain.

# data[].attributes.body
As always, the collaboration with the team.

# data[].attributes.body
Nora's emails laid everything out so clearly and comprehensively, w/ everything we needed right there (links, deadlines).

# data[].attributes.body
I liked seeing the doc with the editors comments in place so I didn't bother commenting on something that had already been addressed, or could just +1 it (although I always made myself do a cold read first, to avoid being influenced by the feedback of others!).

# data[].attributes.body
Reading the pitches and drafts were always a highlight of my week. It was exciting to see the great ideas that the team was bringing forth.

# data[].attributes.body
Having the guidelines to refer to when weighing in was helpful, making stakeholder feedback less subjective. However, the disconnect between what was in the guidelines and the evolving, more risk-averse, unofficial guidance around what would/wouldn't be acceptable made it very hard for the team, I know. You'd sometimes were nudged, in stakeholder feedback, to do something that you'd been led to believe from other stakeholders was off limits.

# data[].attributes.body
We had lots of folks to give us feedback on passages, but it wasn't always clear whose feedback was required vs. just optional. Would be great to clarify at the outset who needs to review what.

# data[].attributes.body
While I liked having so much visibility into the passages at all stages of development, and visibility into the DSN work, too, it  felt like we were micro-managing and too in the weeds, and I think it made the editors, especially, feel disempowered. This may have been unavoidable, given the way "things went down," but in a perfect world, the team would be more informed/empowered to make judgments independently, be liberated from so much oversight, feel more trusted.

# data[].attributes.body
It seemed as though this time around, stakeholders provided feedback regularly and more consistently. However, I think the same stakeholders responded each time. Not sure if this was intentional or if we should have gotten feedback from more stakeholders.