Reply To: LoboAlerts SLA

I wanted to circle back and share actions on the comments to this SLA. In addition to the comments above (thanks Elisha and Cyndi), there was a good discussion at IT Agents about how the role of departmental IT could best be represented in SLAs given the departmental support of underlying components, as is frequently the case with workstations, among others. This is tough (as noted in other discussions) because of the varied role that departmental IT could play, and I expect that the conversation will continue. I will start a topic in the process section to facilitate this ongoing discussion since it relates to all SLAs. That being said, the agreements committee took a first stab at revising the template language for departmental IT support and the changes will be reflected in the LoboAlerts SLA. I also followed up with the UNM Emergency Manager. Here is the response, “I think you’ve summarized the difference appropriately. The issue isn’t that the incident is reported a significant amount of time after the fact, but rather that it poses an ongoing threat to the safety of students or employees. The University is required (Clery Act) to provide notice to the entire campus, as soon as pertinent information becomes available. Users are allowed to choose to receive text or email messages, or both. Since we are required to notify the entire campus, and we can’t determine who has selected which method, we have to send as broadly as possible” (Byron Piatt). I have updated the SLA to clarify how the messages are differentiated and also note more clearly how the service works in this regard. Finally, I removed the billing language from this SLA. The agreements committee will be posting the final version of the draft here that incorporates these updates shortly. Thank you so much for all the feedback!