 |
 |
Dear Dan, Dan Schrager wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I have noticed that it appears to be a problem related to the way > tickets are handled in general. > > I have received tickets from various issuers and then in order to reply > to them I had to get access to various centers. > > I find this situation wrong and I would suggest that the "ticketer" > first assesses which regional organization the "offending" site is part > of and then submits the ticket through that regional organization > designated office. I agree with you. The ticketer does not really need to assess which regional organization the offending site is part as this information is published and therefore known. > > This would mean for the "ticketers" to get access to all regional > offices. > Since there are far less "ticketers" than "ticketees" (I could guess it > from the fact that I am a "ticketee" but not a "ticketer") this would be > better than ending up with all "ticketees" getting access to all > regional offices. > > Don't you agree ? I totally agree. > There is another issue related to escalation. > I would suggest that escalation should occur only if the reported > problem is not solved at site level. > > Escalation should not happen just because a ticket has been ignored > for too long (while the problem is already gone, in a cab, divine > intervention, etc.). > "Ticketees" may prefer to solve the problem first and then ignore a > ticket for lack of access to "ticketer"'s office. I do not agree with this since there is the danger that a ticket gets totally ignored. The person responsible for the ticket, assigning the ticket to the ROC, should also make sure that an answer is provided. Therefore he/she needs to be notified if nothing is happening. > Some human intervention would be required to close the ticket from > "ticketer"'s part. He is, after all, the one who generated the ticket. > And there are a few "trigger-happy" "ticketers", for sure... :-) Flavia