### On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:57:18 -0500 (EST), Greg Maxwell
### <firstname.lastname@example.org> casually decided to expound upon
### <email@example.com> the following thoughts about "Change management
More specifically, I'm interested in knowing how often blocking-type (i.e.
group consent before change) change management is used vs logging type
(i.e. recording the change during/after the fact so the change can be
At my previous employ, we had two different tracks for CM. One handled
domestic, and the other handled international. In both cases, blocking-type
and logging-type procedures were used concurrently. CM meetings occured
every other day with meeting agendas mailed out at least a day prior and
covered events scheduled for at least a week out.
reverted, and for root cause analysis). Also, for blocking type change
management, I'd like to know how people deal with process latency,
emergency changes, approval group selection, etc (if indeed anyone uses
consent to manage top-tier staff, I haven't found anyone so far that does).
Emergency and near-term events were also discussed in detail. As memory
recalls, the CM process for normally scheduled events specified at least a
week's notice for turnups and changes. In addition to the actual CM team,
each group within engineering and operations (provisioning, network
engineering, peering, first and second line ops, etc) had a representative.
Each event and maintenance had a case number issued upon insertion of a
change request into the system and a person (from the CM team) responsbile
for tracking purposes. Process latencies were reported back through the
representative of the issuer of the change and then handled on a
case-by-case basis. Some changes required approval at different levels
depending on whether or not any generic change-holds were in effect at the