ROC Managers' Meeting

Europe/Zurich
CERN

CERN

Maite Barroso Lopez (CERN)
Description

Actions, https://edms.cern.ch/document/893956

Minutes, https://edms.cern.ch/document/893655

This meeting is 10:00 to 11:30 UTC (11:00 to 12:30 Swiss local time).
Phone number is: +41 22 767 6000
Access code is: 0147097
Or click here: https://audioconf.cern.ch/call/0147097

The conference call opens 5 minutes before the meeting starts.


The rota for taking the minutes can be found here: ROTA Today's turn is Russia - Don't forget to update the action list.
The template for the minutes is attached to the agenda under "Template for minutes" (below):
Templates for the minutes
    • 11:00 AM 2:00 PM
      ROC Managers' Meeting
      • 11:00 AM
        Admin matters 5m
      • Final Periodic Report: contributions due before this Friday noon!
      • Deliverables: DSA1.7, status update?
  • 11:00 AM
    Comments on minutes of the last meeting
    Minutes
  • 11:05 AM
    GGUS reports 10m
    Speaker: Maria Dimou
    • TPM Monitoring
      more information
    • GGUS ticket escalation report
      At the meeting all ROCs will be asked to explain what is the status of all tickets which
      have an Inactivity Index > 50
      more information
    • escalation reports created for the support units of the main operational tools
      more information
  • 11:15 AM
    ROC-Site SLA (SLD vs. SLA) 10m
    Hi All, I'm somewhat surprised that the title of the document, rather than the contents, determines whether one can sign or not. The document specifically states that there are no penalties for not meeting the SLA targets. The only penalty is public embarassment through the "league table". However, it's more than simply definitions - there are targets involved. Managing expectations on both sides is certainly also a key goal of the document. In ITIL terms, the document could be considered to be an Operational Level Agreement (OLA), since it's an agreement within the IT organization as to how it will operate. Would OLA be acceptable nomenclature? Is the legal connotation of calling something an SLA a UKI particularity, or do other ROCs also have objections? Would adding a sentence that states that the document is not legally binding be a way around the problem? If a name change is too difficult to carry out, fair enough - but I know that Ian wanted the thing to become an SLA in EGEE-III. If we are to try and gradually introduce some ITIL methodology, we should also start using correct terminology. Perhaps we could discuss this briefly during tomorrow's ROC managers' meeting? Regards, -John
    Speaker: Shade John (CERN)
  • 11:25 AM
    EGEE III 15m
  • SA1 tasks: see attached presentation and "more information" material

  • USAG Mandate approval
    https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/EGEE/SA1_USAG#Mandate
  • more information
    Slides
  • 12:15 PM
    Review of action items 10m
    list of actions
  • 12:25 PM
    AOB 5m