3 ms·

The normal practice would be to have someone operating as an incident communication manager who would be taking care of status/things like this. Saying "we wer

The normal practice would be to have someone operating as an incident communication manager who would be taking care of status/things like this. Saying "we were too busy fixing to communicate" is actually a really bad sign, because it's not just about what you are communicating to the outside world, but also, for example, about making sure people that need to be brought in are getting consistent information.

pcwalton 8y ago
This is an incredibly uncharitable misreading of what I said. We do have incident communication managers who were working around the clock, of course, communicating through the official channels. The question is about why someone didn't set the priority setting in the internal Bugzilla sooner. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, that's not really what priority is for: priority is so that engineers on major projects like WebRender know what is most important to work on. It's not an effective tool for emergency responses. P1 doesn't summon on-call people. Second, everyone who was able to get it fixed was already on it. Bugzilla priorities don't make people who wouldn't otherwise be aware aware. Unlike that of Mozilla, your issue tracker at Google for outages is private and internal-only. One of the many reasons it is private is so that people who don't know the organization's operational processes don't come in and start making incorrect assumptions based on what they find there. I think it's laudable that Mozilla works in the open so much, but comments like this one are some of the downsides of doing so.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  "This is an incredibly uncharitable misreading of what I said" I'm sorry if i offended you. Really. I don't really think it's that uncharitable, but hey, offending you wasn't my intent, and if you were, that is what matters. For what it is worth: your response to the parent took them to task for even attempting to state something: "Because people were staying up until the wee hours of the morning working on fixing it instead of toggling priorities in Bugzilla. This was treated as a five-alarm fire." This is a pretty rude response (which should never be happening regardless of what they wrote), and if you intended to convey that you had incident managers handling it and they didn't get around to it yet, you did not. "Unlike that of Mozilla, your issue tracker at Google for outages is private and internal-only. " I'm really unsure why you decided to add a completely irrelevant and unnecessary attack like this. Honestly, it just makes me think less of you and makes me sad. You are usually a very sane and even keeled person. I'm sure you were not having a good time, but i still don't think this was okay. " One of the many reasons it is private is so that people who don't know the organization's operational processes don't come in and start making incorrect assumptions based on what they find there." Which is incredibly ironic, since it is not in fact as private as you seem to believe . Your own assumption here is completely and totally incorrect. Maybe before you decide to add completely irrelevant and unnecessary attacks, at least verify they are correct? " I think it's laudable that Mozilla works in the open so much, but comments like this one are some of the downsides of doing so." You seem to have taken my comment incredibly personally, and your response seems very far out of proportion. If you want to have a discussion, you're gonna have to tone this down a few notches. FWIW: Right now most of your comments in this story read incredibly defensive (and i'm not just talking about this one) I would stop and give it a rest. It is not projecting a good image. Of course, that's just my perspective. Really hope tomorrow is a better day for you.

pcwalton 8y ago

This is an incredibly uncharitable misreading of what I said. We do have incident communication managers who were working around the clock, of course, communicating through the official channels. The question is about why someone didn't set the priority setting in the internal Bugzilla sooner. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, that's not really what priority is for: priority is so that engineers on major projects like WebRender know what is most important to work on. It's not an effective tool for emergency responses. P1 doesn't summon on-call people. Second, everyone who was able to get it fixed was already on it. Bugzilla priorities don't make people who wouldn't otherwise be aware aware. Unlike that of Mozilla, your issue tracker at Google for outages is private and internal-only. One of the many reasons it is private is so that people who don't know the organization's operational processes don't come in and start making incorrect assumptions based on what they find there. I think it's laudable that Mozilla works in the open so much, but comments like this one are some of the downsides of doing so.

DannyBee 8y ago
"This is an incredibly uncharitable misreading of what I said" I'm sorry if i offended you. Really. I don't really think it's that uncharitable, but hey, offending you wasn't my intent, and if you were, that is what matters. For what it is worth: your response to the parent took them to task for even attempting to state something: "Because people were staying up until the wee hours of the morning working on fixing it instead of toggling priorities in Bugzilla. This was treated as a five-alarm fire." This is a pretty rude response (which should never be happening regardless of what they wrote), and if you intended to convey that you had incident managers handling it and they didn't get around to it yet, you did not. "Unlike that of Mozilla, your issue tracker at Google for outages is private and internal-only. " I'm really unsure why you decided to add a completely irrelevant and unnecessary attack like this. Honestly, it just makes me think less of you and makes me sad. You are usually a very sane and even keeled person. I'm sure you were not having a good time, but i still don't think this was okay. " One of the many reasons it is private is so that people who don't know the organization's operational processes don't come in and start making incorrect assumptions based on what they find there." Which is incredibly ironic, since it is not in fact as private as you seem to believe . Your own assumption here is completely and totally incorrect. Maybe before you decide to add completely irrelevant and unnecessary attacks, at least verify they are correct? " I think it's laudable that Mozilla works in the open so much, but comments like this one are some of the downsides of doing so." You seem to have taken my comment incredibly personally, and your response seems very far out of proportion. If you want to have a discussion, you're gonna have to tone this down a few notches. FWIW: Right now most of your comments in this story read incredibly defensive (and i'm not just talking about this one) I would stop and give it a rest. It is not projecting a good image. Of course, that's just my perspective. Really hope tomorrow is a better day for you.