On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:50:48 -0600, Joey STANFORD joey@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.