Page 1 of 1

RFC required for removing servers from a pool?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:20 pm
by jjarka69
What are your thoughts on requiring an RFC when a device needs to be removed from a pool? I know there has been discussion around if it is in response to break fix then it could be an incident while other orgs consider it a change. From my current perspective we have a very weak incident process and this work isn't always being tracked via an incident or a change request. Would you also consider it a standard change or a normal change?

Personally, as much as it pains me, I would like to see it as an RFC done as a normal change with the proper risk and impact.

Re: RFC required for removing servers from a pool?

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:51 am
by Sandys
For us an RFC is required. If a change is being made to production then an RFC is required. Just because that works for us doesn't mean that's the best policy for you.

Here incidents are used to log production issues, RFC's are used for production changes. Sometimes 1 is related to the other and are linked together. i.e. An incident is logged for a production issue and an RFC is logged to correct the production issue. The incident and RFC are linked together. But again that's what works for us.

Re: RFC required for removing servers from a pool?

Posted: Thu May 12, 2022 4:06 pm
by jjarka69
Thanks Sandy. That is what I require too. We also ask people to relate incident tickets to the changes if there was impact so we can track the impact and monetary impact of such a change. However, as of late I am getting a lot of pushback on that, where people are saying it is a state change in a controlled manner and thus don't require a change ticket. I strongly disagree as you can lose tracking of what is done and what isn't and wanted to raise the question to see what other people are doing.