Talk:Service-level agreement/Archives/2013

Untitled

I don't understand why to cataloge this article under IT. In fact, SLAs can be created for a wide range of services, including transportation, warehousing, shared services , and so on Abigar 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling back in the article's history it appears that the originlnal 'branch' of it mainly was oriented at SLA software. Hence the IT category.

I do agree with Abigar and I suggest to remove it. JanEnEm (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

General Issues

• Warning: long comment*

OK all, we need some general questions answered for this article! Looks like someone started it based on a commercial site (sla-zone.co.uk) and made a link to that site. Fair enough...doesn't seem TOO commercial. Next, other people started adding links and they there is some question on what is appropriate. So let's answer some basic questions and all get along... 1. Should SLAs have a separate article? 2. Should SLAs also be catalogued under IT? 3. What types of links are allowed? How 'commercial'?

1. Yes. It looks like something separate, isn't handled elsewhere (and many places link to this as a place to expand on the subject) 2. Yes. SLAs are big (well, *should* be big perhaps:-)) in IT. There'll be specifics different from other industries. If we have information that extends SLAs to different industries it should be in. Many references to this article are generally from IT-specific sites - like from 'Service Level Management' in ITIL :-). 3. Let's pick a line and be consistent. Everyone's getting in a knot. What is commercial? How commercial is OK? I figure (in order of least commercial to most) that the links are: www.itil.org (glossary) Link to Wikipedia's 'Office of Government Commerce' article www.cio.com (but has advertising) sla-zone.co.uk www.nkarten.com I'll take any cutoff point. Recommend not the cio.com one (too little info, too much advertising)

Last points-comments on these sites a) Welkin19 and 209.146.157.98 want to add a link to either OGC and/or ITIL 78.110.168.138 thinks it's a non ITIL area. 78... thought ITIL shouldn't be "elevated and promoted in the manner it has, in an article which covers a non-ITIL topic" or that an internal link would suffice →Either OGC or ITIL is a good link. If 78... has other framework links that add value, add 'em. It *is* an ITIL topic. b) 209... added a link to the Karsten site, 78... thought it was too commercial →It's definitely commercial...more so than the sla-zone one c) 75.127.109.26 (possibly related to the sla-zone site?) thought the sla-zone site was "informational: the very essence of adding such links to wiki pages". 78... thought it was "good since the article was originally built from it." →75... is arguing that commercial sites with info should be included. I'm OK with that. Would 78... still say this if someone originally built the article from the Karsten site?

For interest, the 'Service Level' references only a book. Ian TO (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that ITIL is being elevated if it is included, and it shouldn't be. The other extreme, link to all frameworks, is just as wrong. This isn't a link directory.

And note that SLA is not just IT, as stated at the outset above. It is good to remember that.

The way forward? Just add content! Refs and links will emerge by organic means if necessary and appropriate. The problem here is that people seem to be simply trying to add links for the sake of it. Just stick to content and develop forward: the article will then expand as per usual 78.110.168.138 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Software

I believe some mention could be made of software that can be used to automatically measure and quantify adherance to service level agreements.

Applications include:

• Nagios
• Cricket

A mention that software could be used, yes. But a list of links? Most certainly no. Too many good wiki pages disintegrate when people try to turn them into directories.

If the article needs citations then it's going to perhaps require some external links and some of them may need to be on *gasp* sites belonging to companies. As long as it's not an advertisment or in any way promotional I don't see the problem. That SLA definition from the Glossary of terms is a case in point. That's the official OGC definition but for some reason it's not available on their site. Using their offiliates & citing them is justified in this case. Welkin19 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone against me reverting the link to include the definition & citation? If someone can find it on the OGC website please add it ASAP. Welkin19 (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and I think falls within fair use of openly available information. This is the same as the ITIL definition isn't it? 209.146.157.98 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we need something...and if it's not going to be from a commercial website or ITIL.org then where. Welkin19 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ITIL is one of a number of frameworks. It should not be elevated and promoted in the manner it has, in an article which covers a non-ITIL topic, for which it is peripheral. Equally, if there is a requirement for a definition of some type, then simply link internally to the appropriate wiki article. These are well populated in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.168.138 (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well given that SLAs are prevallent in the business world it's fairly likely the actual sources of the required citation are going to be on company's websites. If it's none promotional then what's the harm? Welkin19 (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. It is not a question of 'harm', it is a question of what is appropriate. Repeating: ITIL is one of many frameworks, so why elevate it above the others? Not appropriate. And even if it was, an internal link to the relevant wiki article would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.168.138 (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky to get citations to a predominantly business based topic using only internal wikipedia links. The OGC one would be perfect but I can't find it anywhere on their site. This was the justification for using the officially copyrighted glossary of terms as found on the RichmondSys website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welkin19 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But ITIL should not be elevated above the other frameworks in the manner you suggest (and if it was, which it shouldn't, an internal link would in fact suffice, as the ITIL page is mature). 78.110.168.138 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding the that OGC is a government thing so that definition would be perfect. It's just you can't find it on the .gov.uk site hence the richmond link Welkin19 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take thee time to UNDERSTAND what I am saying, rather than allowing your desperation to add a particular link (for whatever reason) to prevent this. I will use the same words again, because you do not seem to be hearing them. ITIL should not be elevated above the other frameworks in the manner you suggest (and if it was, which it shouldn't, an internal link would in fact suffice, as the ITIL page is mature). Have you understood that? No elevation of ITIL for the reasons repeated again and again? No external link needed when you can refer to those frameworks internally? I am beginning to wonder about the motive here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.110.168.138 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the UK government's OGC anything to do with ITIL? I'm not interested in ITIL. I think you are getting mixed up, whatever there's no need to be so patronising. I was merely seeking to add a UK goverment department's officially sanctioned definition Welkin19 (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is the UK government's OGC anything to do with ITIL?" In actual fact, YES! The OGC own ITIL. Are you not aware of that? I suggest that you do some research.

So back, for about the tenth time, to 'ITIL should not be elevated above the other frameworks in the manner you suggest (and if it was, which it shouldn't, an internal link would in fact suffice, as the ITIL page is mature).'.

I don't mean to be patronising, especially if your fist language is not English, but you are trying to elevate ITIL, and an ITIL link, and you don't even seem to understand that you are doing it. You are way off course. 78.110.168.138 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If you'd have said that in the first place. What the problem if it's government owned? It's hardly commercial...just a well defined defintion of what an SLA is, no-one ever said it was THE definition but the article is flagged as requiring souces so that's what I did. Isn't talking abut things better than just patronising people...or is your "internet bully" persona the whole point?Welkin19 (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SLA or Contract

The overview states that "Contracts between the service provider and other third parties are often (incorrectly) called SLAs" is confusing. This statement was introduced in the article on November 25, 2008 by User:gordon.parker and never commented as far as I have noticed.

At first: a contract is in my view a formalized agreement, so I do not see why an SLA can not be a contract specifying what service level is provided. Secondly, I do not understand what is meant with the reference to third parties. In fact the sentence I am referring to is a comment made by the contributor, not to be placed in an overview section. I propose to remove that phrase and will do so if no reactions are registered here. JanEnEm (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)