Update Triage process to include hand-off expectations #857
Conversation
…of rotation This change incorporate the discussion from issue [meta/944](2i2c-org/meta#944): "Minimal but impactful improvement in our support process"
|
hey @2i2c-org/engineering is it possible to merge before iteration planning? |
|
|
||
| _Support triagers should, when they unassign from a ticket ensure a handover note is available and up to date towards the end of the ticket._ | ||
|
|
||
| A ticket handover note should _summarize whats relevant_ to know in order to drive the ticket towards a resolution without needing to read through the conversation up to that point. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sgibson91 wrote in https://github.com/2i2c-org/meta/issues/944#issuecomment-2061625516:
Also maybe some guidance on what good handover notes look like? I am intimidated by this piece, usually because I am struggling to process the ticket in the first place.
I've tried to write a few handover notes, but its tough for me to say if they are good as being good/bad is to a large extent determined if the reader of the handover note. I think after we've all attempted to write and read a few it will be easier to say what are good examples.
For practical quick reference though, I looked at some open / pending tickets and found notes I've written so far:
There is no action point besides handling the opened tickets at this point.
Marked as pending awaiting resolution of 2i2c-org/docs#224 tracking writing dask-gateway usage documentation allowing communities with dask-gateway hubs actually make use of it.
I also recall writing lengthy notes for tickets that are wild with many separate things discussed - then I remember outlining the individual parts and marking them as completed or clarifying what remains.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sgibson91 are you okay with going for the PR as it is now and trying to collectively learn what a good handover note is?
|
One suggestion, if that's accepted this looks right to me. |
Co-authored-by: Yuvi Panda <yuvipanda@gmail.com>
|
I'll go for a merge here! Thank you @haroldcampbell for getting this PR out! |
This change incorporate the discussion from issue meta/944: "Minimal but impactful improvement in our support process"
EDIT: fixes https://github.com/2i2c-org/meta/issues/944
Seen and accepted by: