[rt-users] Support partnership with different RT installs

[Kenneth Crocker]

Gavin,


	From a control standpoint, I've always had a real problem with 
redundancy unless there was a control to ensure automatic updating of 
one by the other. If the method you use now is working, why change it? 
Are they gonna use their RT for "other" requests that do not get into 
your installation? If they are the Queue Admins of their queues in your 
installation, is it their intent to continue that form of management 
with those same queues or are they planning to just Admin their own RT 
installation from here on in? If they want off your system completely, 
then let them set up their RT for CommandByEmail and just have the 
customers that send in requests send their new requests to the new 
installation, managed by themselves with no redundancy in your system. 
If, for some reason, they just want copies of their tickets in your RT, 
then I suppose you could set up a scrip for their queues (in your RT) to 
created a linked ticket (type=referred to/by) in their system and let 
them deal with the redundant info and admin infrastructure. Those are 
the only ideas I have on the issue that I feel are acceptable from a 
management/responsibility/scapegoat perspective. ;-). Hope this helps.


Kenn
LBNL

On 7/1/2008 2:10 PM, Gavin Henry wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> We have http://support.suretecsystems.com and our partners are about
> to install there own RT.
> 
> They have accounts on our system and are admins of certain queues when
> we do joint support.
> 
> The question is how can we get the tickets submitted into our system
> into their new one but keep the same subjects, as they want the
> history in their new one.
> 
> We were thinking about deleting their accounts and having a new user
> with the e-mail of their queue, so when a ticket
> comes in it sends it over to their RT. If we switch the autoreply
> scrip off on their side as the customer will never e-mail them direct,
> then that is fine. But their RT will create a new ticket.
> 
> Anyone is a similar position or should we just get them to admin in
> our queue like we currently do?
> 
> Thanks.
>