[rt-users] Re: Dealing with ex-employees

[Damian Gerow]

Thus spake Roger B.A. Klorese (rogerk at queernet.org) [07/01/04 16:30]:
> > When Marsha is hired because Matthew left, we don't want to 
> > give Marsha all
> > of Steve's tickets -- there might be a valid reason for 
> > keeping Steve as the
> > owner.
> 
> Why would you want to keep Matthew as the owner?!

Why wouldn't I?

> Wouldn't you want to make the *team* the collective owner, until someone
> actually has to work on it?  And make the person actually working on it the
> owner?

Why would I want to shift all the tickets so the *team* is the collective
owner?  Our workflow dictates that this is much more complicated than just
having individual owners, who take the ticket from 'Nobody' (or have it
assigned to them).  I gain nothing by re-assigning all of Matthew's tickets
to someone(s) else, but lose the time it takes to update all these tickets.
I also lose the ability to look at past performance of CSR's, to look at
current performance, and to be able to find past tickets easier (customer
says he was talking to Matthew six months ago, doesn't remember what e-mail
address he used -- try finding that ticket, if all of Matt's tickets have
been re-assigned).