I don't pretend to understand completely the current workflow in GGUS but it has been developed to deal with many additional use cases. The Notify Site was originally implemented as a quick add on to shortcut a helpdesk having to assign a ticket to a site (a sysadmin working at night could fix a problem before the helpdesk staff assigned the ticket the following day if only they were aware of it). At inception, this was a one-off email alert and there was no followup notifications of subsequent changes to the ticket. Thus it was vital also to assign the GGUS ticket to relevant people. If there has been mission creep and sites now get all updates just by NOTIFY SITE being set then there may indeed be scope to clean up the behaviour.
Look at https://ggus.eu/ws/ticket_info.php?ticket=76608 and you will see a ticket where NOTIFY SITE, assigned and involved are all used (and it is also a TEAM ticket). Interestingly Brunel don't have a helpdesk email in GOCDB so I don't know where the notify address came from. The NGI has used the GridPP-maintained list of people to be contacted for a site so you will see Duncan and Daniela there.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ewan MacMahon
Sent: 06 December 2011 00:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Changing tickets to "in progress"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say Alessandra. The fact that sites
> react to the original NOTIFY SITE is a bonus, not a reason for the
> helpdesk to ignore the ticket.
>
I don't wish to put words in Alessandra's mouth, but I think she's
getting at the same issue that I was when I suggested unifying the
assigned to/notified fields. Essentially, that once a site know about
a ticket and is dealing with it, leaving it in the queue on 'new'
tickets for the NGI ticket wranglers to then assign is pointless; it's
work for them and it adds nothing. It's good to have people routing
tickets to the right places, but there's no point in making them do it
to tickets that are already in the right place.
> Not all tickets are team tickets and not all tickets use NOTIFY SITE. We
> need a process that makes sure we don't miss tickets.
>
Indeed, but it would be fine to have the submitter route the ticket, and
only have the NGI folk step in for the tickets where they don't.
Ewan
|