6/3/3 Meeting on Support
Attendees: JKern, slc, Clay, J Jackson, kvd, mlpl, bennett,
Laura Walsh, Karen Lukas

1.  What do we view as our individual roles in this process
and what activities are we working on that may influence the
process?

jkern - in charge of transition to ISAM.  re-writting consultants-for
services (http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~jkern/support) for new org alignment.  
Creating a list of internal servers and services and 3rd level 
support person.  Hope to revise consultants for services to be auto-generated
from Remedy CTIs (provide clearer definitions and stats). 
Other managers have some consultants, tom interested in spreading the 
support load among developers.  Will also likely address a discovery
proposal to drop support on some items.

slc - as far as external support, no real changes, mostly here as 
an ear and wanting to know what's happening.  working on client
roadmap.  Some concerns that a static roadmap is not feasible.

cfulton - role is clear, but needs clear guidelines on what to support and who 
to go to for what.

jackson - interested in several items on agenda, particularly "how do we
change what we support?"

kvd - working on requirements document for support - what are 
needs/expectations for support decisions for all division roles?  
(timeline: interviews over the next couple of weeks).  Maybe draft
in July? "architecture board" - no such thing -- architects can 
offer opinions about particular.


mary l - listening. also provided information on what the IT&Planning role 
is and how it's going to be communicated.  Somebody will present
current status of discovery and planning at Manager's meeting and 
later at brown bag session.

bennett - tasked with:
a.  coordinate a consistent definition of support for
	services.
b.  document and publish the findings to the user community.

No target date for completion or 1st draft.  Some concerns about
trying to quantify levels of supports.  Its been done before and always failed
(jackson requested historical examples of this).  Bennett proposed 
some kind of table with application and groups.  

Walsh - observer

Lukas - observer


2.  What is the role of the architecture and planning groups in this process?

There was some discussion and confusions here.  jk requested some guidelines 
from board in establishing the process for changing support agreements, 
applications and versions.   Maybe some signoff sheets or general posts.
Planning should be involved in phase-outs (discovery proposal).  Probably doesn't
want to be involved in decisions related to minor upgrades.


3.  What process do we have to make changes to the current support
	definitions (e.g.  we should add/remove application x - who decides?)

No clear consensus.  This probably needs established soon.


actions:

jkern: will collect existing support reference documents into a collection
(revised consultants for services, OS phase-out and support documents, other?)

kvd: working on "requirements document" to be passed to Meena and Tom for 
their negotiation - will also draft a proposed process for support 
changes based on the requirements for this group's review.

brian: coordinating the communication about what groups are offering what 
kinds of support for which services/applications (timeline: ongoing process)


Conclusions:
Some people thought the meeting was useful.  Some people were confused as to
why they were invited.

No plans to meet again until after some of the actions are completed.