undefined

points

[-]

The status page is not where you communicate about either the root cause or about the action plan for preventing recurrences.

by bravetraveler5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You sure? That's exactly where I found this. Note the domain :)

https://status.cloud.google.com/incidents/ow5i3PPK96RduMcb1S...

edit: before some drive-by datamining nerd thinks I do/did SRE for Google, no

by jsnell4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Fair enough! But that's not real-time communication during an active incident. It's communication O(days) later.

by bravetraveler4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

And that's totally fine! Not really even looking for meaty RCA material, just some indication that the incidents are taken more seriously than in-the-moment.

To be fair, too, it's likely been mentioned. I'm biased towards an unreasonable standard due to my line of work.

A status page without some thorough history is glorified 'About Us' :P

by ath3nd3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Extremely hard disagree. The status page is exactly where you communicate about both the root cause, and the action plan to prevent it.

Every status page incident on every normal company everywhere in the world has links to lead you to the postmortem and their steps to avoid it. Here are a few examples:

https://status.gitlab.com/ -> https://status.gitlab.com/pages/history/5b36dc6502d06804c083...

https://status.hetzner.com/ -> https://status.hetzner.com/incident/2e715748-fddd-427b-a07b-...

https://www.githubstatus.com/ -> https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/mj067hg9slb4

https://bitbucket.status.atlassian.com/ -> https://bitbucket.status.atlassian.com/incidents/4mcg46242wz...

It's literally a standard for your status page to communicate both about root cause and action plan how to prevent it in the future. Sure, when an incident is just happening, the status page entry doesn't have the postmortem and the steps to avoid, but later on those get added.

Being so overconfidently wrong reminds me of an LLM.