Hi Wahid,
> - Perhaps writing things in the ticket should be counted as responding.
That is responding, but it does not change the flag on the ticket that is used to prompt escalation. There has to be something. Other complications enter too, such as waiting for the submitter to respond which can often take the ticket beyond the target days.
> - "must" repond within 8 hrs for T2s is stupid - weekend tickets or even those at night might well not get that response - we need a whole different support model if we are really to take that seriously.
Have a look at the full document as it does take account of what are the standard site operating hours.
> - those kind of expectations on tickets add further weight to my view that tickets should not be used for minor change requests or things were the time to solve it is expected to be several months (or even weeks)
There have over the years been various suggestions as to how to divide user problems, alarm tickets, change requests and so on. As in most areas we probably want simplification not further complication, but as mentioned in my previous reply I'd rather not open up this discussion again right now. The OLA has been in place for years and has not caused us much grief. WLCG has its own set of criteria too and again there are no serious concerns. Today's reminder to put tickets 'in progress' was all this thread was about. If there is a widespread view that the OLA is problematic then before we reopen the discussion we need to bullet point the problems being generated by it considering that it is a guideline as currently implemented.
Cheers,
Jeremy
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2013, at 18:15, Jeremy Coles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Govind/All
>>
>>> Just for knowledge, what is agreed first response time?
>>
>> The EGI Operations Level Agreement specifies:
>>
>> "The Resource Centre MUST respond to tickets within eight hours of the ticket having been assigned to it, and SHOULD resolve incidents within five working days."
>>
>> I don't invite suggestions to renegotiate this now, but people may wish refer to the full document at https://documents.egi.eu/public/ShowDocument?docid=31.
>>
>> So a response within 8 hours and resolution within 5 days would be the normal expectation, but generally I think everyone does much better than this maximum. Of course there are exceptions and some tickets need to be put on hold. There also remains a question about the metrics so sites are unlikely to be chased unless there is a constant problem with lack of responsiveness.
>>
>> Ewan's response on the reopened sequence makes sense and I agree that it should go back into 'in progress' once the site picks it up (i.e. notices it).
>>
>> Matt, kind of you to take responsibility for some tickets not being noticed by sites but it is really the responsibility of every site to watch for and respond to their tickets. On Tuesday a link was provided that we quickly used to pull up the status across the NGI so everyone could see all 60+ open tickets and could have looked for their site name! Of course we can do our best to help everyone stay on top of tickets, and on that score your weekly summary is very useful - thanks.
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> P.S The thread is really a reminder for everyone to set tickets to 'in progress' when they pick them up and not a criticism of anyone or any site. We all forget things from time to time.
>>
>
>
> --
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|