USAG 06 May 2008 ================== Attendance ----------------- GGUS - Helmut Dres, Torsten Antoni, Guenter Grein, Sabine Reisser CERN - Maria Dimou, Antonio Retico FR - Fred. Schaer, David Bouvet UK/I - Claire Devereux IT - Federico Nebiolo Atlas- Xavier Espinar LHCb - Roberto Santinelli Alice et al - Patricia Mendez AP - NA4 - Vangelis Floros RU - Apologies: ---------- NA4 - Frederic Schaer (only available for 30mins), Cal Loomis CERN - Nick Ziogas
ORDINARY TICKETS IN TERMS OF PRIORITY BUT SPECIAL IN TERMS OF ROUTING
Concerns were expressed, already at our last (April 10) meeting about ROCs/Sites that have local ticketing systems. If GGUS assigns the ticket to Sites directly, what "support line" should it chose within the local ticketing system? Antonio: an uncontrolable number of new tickets risk to be created in the local system/GGUS_ticket during GGUS updates. Maria: is the COD model enough? Roberto: why Atlas needs the Site explicitely? Cc is enough and works well. Xavier and Patricia agree with the COD model.
Decision: The COD workflow model (i.e. assignment to the ROC, Cc to the Site) is sufficient and satisfactory for VO requirements. Submitters will be "The Team".
GGUS development for automatic assignment to the Sites' right email address taken from GOCdb is still necessary (point 2 in WLCG panel notes, April 22, 2008 ).
Point 3 in WLCG panel notes, April 22, 2008 will not be implemented. There was no community interest. Ticket viewing will be possible by all. Update will be only allowed to "The Team" and the supporters involved (ROC, Site).
ALARM/EMERGENCY TICKETS:
Given that the Tier1 operators' alarms emails at each site are not yet ready, Antonio proposed to include the Site alarms' email addresses (when defined via GDB or other body coordination) in GOCDB. Hence GGUS will use the same workflow as above. It will just select the relevant email address for the Cc field when the ticket is submitted by a member for the "Authorised Alarmers" group. When taking the site automatically from GOCDB and its address, for GGUS handling there is no difference between Tier1s and Tier2s.
About the MoU inclusion in GGUS tickets:
GGUS should just include the value for info and make it searchable.
On proposal implementation timescale:
June would be nice but the Site alarms' mailing lists' depends on the GDB and GOCDB.
20080506-1: (Was: #164.14) Provide information on the CIC VO XML dump Gilles Carry forward This action dates since the ESC meeting of 24 May 2007. Please remind us who still needs this action done and why. David Bouvet will ask Gilles. 20080506-2: Ask the GDB on 20080514 about Site alarms' mailing lists definition. Maria Pending. 20080506-3: Ask the GOCDB developers about Site alarms' mailing lists inclusion. Claire Pending.