On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:50:48 -0600, Joey STANFORD <j...@linaro.org> wrote:
> I was hoping we could have one system for this instead of two. Are you
> sure that the existing IR process can't be tweaked and used for this
> purpose?
Well, the main reason we now have two processes is that I wasn't aware
of / had forgotten about the wider process when I wrote up the one for
LAVA!
When I did read the DealingWithCrisis page, I felt that the incident it
had in mind was something more like a leak of embargoed information than
a service disruption. Not all LAVA disruptions will fall into the "wake
people up" category and I definitely don't want people to avoid creating
an incident report because the process implies that all incidents are a
big deal that require disturbing people's sleep.
If we were to have a general incident management policy, I think we
would need to come up with some guidelines for gauging the severity of
an incident.
Whether we do that or not, it would be easy to put the LAVA incident
reports under Internal/Process/DealingWithCrisis/IncidentReports rather
than Internal/LAVA/Incidents/Reports/ but use some naming convention so
that we could still have a LAVA specific list of incidents and
process[0]. Let me know if you'd like to do this.
Cheers,
mwh
[0] Something that I wouldn't want to lose -- even if the LAVA specific
process pointed to some general page for general things, I still
want a no-thinking process for the LAVA team to follow when a LAVA
disruption happens.
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
