Well you guys use this more than I do but I thought that team and alarm tickets only 'notify' the siute - ie send an email pointing at the GGUS ticket, they don't actually assign the ticket. The pulldown assign is only for SUs; the assign to email box is filled in my the NGI helpdesk, not the team ticket.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alessandra Forti [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 December 2011 12:56
> To: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> Cc: Gordon, John (STFC,RAL,ESC)
> Subject: Re: Changing tickets to "in progress"
>
> On 05/12/2011 12:00, John Gordon wrote:
> > Historically there were certainly sites who were 'notified' directly
> by GGUS and fixed the problem from that so showed little motivation to
> then update GGUS. I think that happens less now but I would need
> convincing that sites would bother with the 'in progress' and not just
> go to GGUS when it was time to 'solve'.
> on the contrary. All the team tickets still notify the site. And infact
> often tickets get answered before the NGI changes their status. I
> always
> found this scheme unnecessarily redundant. Team tickets could be
> assigned directly to the site without notification as far as I know
> there is no technical reason the NGI should step in this process infact
> I think the decision was more managerial than technical. It had
> something to do with the notification to the NGIs (back then ROCs).
>
> Example
>
> https://ggus.eu/ws/ticket_info.php?ticket=75924
>
> cheers
> alessandra
>
>
> > Apart from that the SU in GGUS is NGI_UK and there is a metric on us
> for response time. This is measured as the time from assigned to in
> progress and it is to measure that someone in the UK has seen the
> ticket. This is why I pushed to have the helpdesk mark them as 'in
> progress'. It is not ideal to have metrics affect how one uses a system
> like this but we know that observations or measurements of a system
> affect it, so that shouldn't be a surprise - the generalized Heisenberg
> principle.
> >
> > I'd also like to guard against the temptation for a site to say,
> 'well actually this isn't a problem for me to handle but it needs my
> site network expert so I won't mark it in progress until I am certain
> he is working on it'. That's not what is measured; it is just to show
> that someone in the UK has looked at it.
> >
> > John
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
> >> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Coles
> >> Sent: 05 December 2011 11:09
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Changing tickets to "in progress"
> >>
> >> Hi Daniela
> >>
> >> This was being discussed again after a few discussions at the
> HEPSYSMAN
> >> meeting at QMUL. Interestingly the decision to move to this way of
> >> working happened almost exactly one year ago! There were reasons for
> it
> >> but I detect increasing unhappiness with it at the sites. John
> Kewley
> >> responded to
> >> my questions about it last week:
> >>
> >> " "in progress" is a separate issue, it will need looking at again
> >> soon, but our use seemed
> >> to be consistent with the reporting discussed at my recent
> meeting.
> >> We can then analyse
> >> . Time with the TPM
> >> . Time with the NGI
> >> . Time with the people who fix it (even if this goes through a
> cycle
> >> of right/wrong people)"
> >>
> >> The current usage is primarily metrics related but a secondary
> concern
> >> was that people kept forgetting to change the status to "in
> progress"
> >> when they started
> >> working on the ticket. If we could be sure that all site admins will
> >> remember to change the status then (I think) from a workflow
> >> perspective it makes sense to let them do it.
> >>
> >> Jeremy
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5 Dec 2011, at 10:18, Daniela Bauer wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Can we please please please advise the UKI helpdesk *not* to set
> >>> tickets to 'in progress', but leave that to the site when they have
> >>> actually picked up on it ?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Daniela
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> From:<[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Date: 5 December 2011 10:14
> >>> Subject: GGUS-Ticket-ID: #77016 "IN PROGRESS" "NGI_UK" "srmcp
> >> command fails"
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> ***********************************************************************
> >> **********
> >>> This is an automated mail. When replying don't change the subject
> >> line!
> >>> Type your text above this box and S T R I P P R E V I O U S M A
> I
> >> L
> >>> S please!!
> >>>
> >>
> ***********************************************************************
> >> **********
> >>> GGUS ticket #77016 was updated.
> >>>
> >>> REFERENCE LINK: https://ggus.eu/ws/ticket_info.php?ticket=77016
> >>> SUBJECT: srmcp command fails
> >>>
> >>> =====================
> >>> LATEST MODIFICATIONS:
> >>>
> >>> LAST MODIFIER -> Matt Heeks
> >>>
> >>> STATUS -> in progress
> >>> ASSIGNED TO -> lcg-site-
> >>
> [log in to unmask];[log in to unmask];daniela.bauer.grid@goog
> >> lemail.com;[log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>> HEP Group/Physics Dep
> >>> Imperial College
> >>> Tel: +44-(0)20-75947810
> >>> http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/~dbauer/
|