USAG MEETING September 25, Istanbul, EGEE08. Present: Diana Bosio (CERN), Maria Dimou (CERN), Torsten Antoni (KIT), Guenter Grein (KIT), John Gordon (UK/I), Claire Devereux (UK/I), Federico Nebiolo (IT), Gianfranco Sciacca (UCL), Kalle Keserand (Balticgrid), Ron Trompert (SARA), Andrew Richard (STFC- RAL), John Kewley (STFC), Frederic Schaer (CEA), Valeriy Kirichenko (ITEP, Moscow), Eddie Arenovich (TAV), Kai Neuffer (PIC), Francisco Castejon (CIEMAT), Alessandro Di Girolamo (ATLAS). 1. Agenda approval Shall we abandon the agenda? No. 2. Comments on minutes from the July 17th USAG meeting None. 3. Final comment on EGEE III Milestone MSA1.6 on GGUS assessment: Extract from the EGEE III Description of Work document (around page 123) defining MSA1.6: ------- MSA1.6 Assessment of the status of user support SA1 IFAE PM4 An assessment of the status of user support, including input from stakeholders in NA4 and SA1. It will include the plan for user support for the remainder of the project and indicate strategies for support in an EGI/NGI model. -------- There was a presentation by Kai on MSA1.6. 2412 tickets in period 1-5-2008 to 31-8-2008. Most of the tickets are assigned to the ROCs. 35% user tickets, the rest are COD tickets. 23 team tickets and 5 alarm tickets. Solution time: 423 hours assignment time: 3:14 hours Diana+Torsten: A plot showing the distribution would be better than just showing the average. 84% of tickets assigned within the hour. Diana: Maybe distinguishing between "incident" and "request" ticket (or whatever it was it is a good idea...) Frederic: do you have developers in GGUS? Maria: yes. 4. What from the GGUS Plan DSA1.1. EDMS Ref. here will be done in the remaining 2008 GGUS Releases. Can we do GGUS 8.0? [Torsten to start the discussion by going through the main Plan points]. This point being mixed with the following one about open request, I will report the discussion below. 5a. Feedback on "ALARM" and "TEAM" tickets introduced with GGUS Rel. 7.0 Frederic: useful, but open to abuse Maria: up to the vo manager to make sure this does not happen. Maria: sites are complaining about direct assignment to sites. 5b. Recent request open in the ESC savannh project: 1. By John Gordon, GDB and UK/I ROC, to discuss how clear the information on ALARM tickets is for sites to automatically tell what service is affected. John Gordon: for instance it would be nice to have more information in the ticket on what type of problem. Pull down menu of topics menu, reflected on the ticket. The difficult bit is decide on the topic. From that put a label on the ticket, some XML, to add content to the alarm ticket. John Gordon: will come up with a list in few months time, will probably raise it at the GDB not next month, probably the next one. Come up with a classification coming from the T1s. 2. By the Atlas VO to extend this functionality to Tier2s [Read exchanges in this savannah ticket]. John Gordon: direct routing of all tickets to sites. Yes. Direct assignment to all sites for all tickets. John Gordon: I would vote for it. Maria: Rolf Rumler is against it. John Gordon: can extract the site contact e-mail this with a direct query to the DB of the GOCDB. Prototype of Web services in October. Ron: why are sites complaining? Ron: can make the direct assignment optional? Diana: impossible to make it optional. Not to mention confusing. 3. By Fabio Hernandez, IN2P3, for a possibility for a to launch the alarm testing procedure, not just GGUS will not be discussed here. Not many site admins are here, a part from Ron. 4. Do we need a confirmation from sites for reception of alarm emails? John Gordon: set a flag in the e-mail. Guenter: automatic reply would be nice. 6. Review Action List ACTION LIST =========== 20080506-1: (Was: #164.14) Provide information on the CIC VO XML dump Cyril last message from Gilles explaining the situation: http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=3&confId=37954 Carry forward until autumn 200806-1: Provide statistics on elapsed time between status transitions in GGUS Torsten dealt with by the report generator, due (student working on it now) soonish. closed. 200806-2: Write a questionnaire for the VOs based on the site survey results to solicit criteria of assessment for user support Kai Done 200806-3: Write to NA4 and LHC VO managers to ask criteria for user support assessment. Maria Depends on 200806-2. Done 200806-4: Keep point about MS1.6 in agenda Maria Done and On going Done. 200806-6: Report progress on the definition of escalation authority for software tickets. Diana and Maria report: requirement from Cal. conclusion was that button should not be there, but tickets should be escalated to the usag. Maria: we should find a way to tell the user. Pending 200807-1: Write new Table of Contents for MSA1.6 and distribute it to the list Kai Done 200807-3: Read DSA1.1 all Closed 200807-4: Put an item in the agenda for the USAG@EGEE08 meeting on feedback on the team and alarm tickets features introduced with GGUS 7.0 Maria Done 200807-6: revive the thread of work on metrics and associated reports Diana and Guenter Pending 7. Decide on next meeting date. Algorithm is: last thursday of the month. So, next meeting is October 30th.