Add “Active” status

[wsanchez]

Splinter:

This would be a status for a situation like Niki Perez. It is active and happening, and in a ranger kind of mind, not in a "dispatch" kind of mind.

Tool:

Is active the right word? Does it go before or after "Dispatched"?

Seems like this would go between "New" and "Dispatched", no?

Splinter:

YES Active between New and Dispatched.

It's like the state where people are figuring out what to do OR, it's just a thing that needs to be on the Radar.

Tool:

While we're in here, let's use constant on the server and enforce known states.

One problem is that the dispatch queue is already wide due to lots of columns, and this would add another.

Zetigeist:

i would suggest "ongoing," as people seemed to be calling it an "ongoing" incident a lot last year.

Splinter:

Ongoing is fine. What I am finding when doing this with actual traffic is that basic things will never have their status changed from new. Maybe to closed, but there is a lot of chatter that doesn't matter right off the bat.

What you definitely want is that column of ongoing to be the next one. You would make something that seems like an issue into an Ongoing thing. Then, when multiple calls come in about something, it is easier to find them in the Ongoing category. Like with vehicle intercepts. Or Caution Mike on his motorcycle....

Can it just be a check box? This is a little bit of a Needed thing

Tool:

How about using priority?

Right now, the default priority is 5. Maybe the default should be 3 or 4, and incidents that are on hold/ongoing/active could be set to priority 5.

Would that work?

Splinter:

Let me let that sink in. It doesn't immediately answer the issue.

Honestly, the Dispatched, On Scene, and Closed thing doesn't really match to what we do. I understand the desire to match old world models, but for the most part, they don't fit.

Thinking here:

Call comes in, It's New. It turns into a big deal. It keeps going. It stays New but with a different priority level until someone is dispatched? Maybe.

I also would think that our default could be 1. Then the priority would get moved up depending on how many times it got talked about.

Niki Perez would remain a 5 so we would know, even if it was closed, that it had been a big deal.

1's wouldn't need to be reported on later.

3's could be LEO 2's Medical

I actually think it might work with 5 being "On Going” 4 being "Was a 5” 3 LEO 2 Medical 1 General

???

Tool:

Let’s start with a definition: 1 is top priority, 5 is lowest.

We do not want incidents to default to top priority. That needs to be an explicit decision by a person.

So I’m suggesting they default to 3, meaning “medium”. If it’s unimportant, it’s dropped to 4. If it’s on hold, drop to 5.

If it’s more important than normal, use 2. Emergencies, use 1.

I’m delving to https://github.com/burningmantech/ranger-ims/issues/7, so I should document that there.

Tool:

So, I don’t think I have time to add an active status and clean up the UI in 2013. Pushing this to Later. We need some other way to manage these. I don’t think it’s super critical, though. Niki-type cases are rare.

Tool:

Hydro requests this, has use case.

"There are several classes of incidents that have long lived natures. It would be helpful to have states along the lines of:

on-hold: example - capt hook will tow this POS in 9 hours since he just went to sleep. In the meanwhile, allow it to be filtered out of ""active"" calls

needs-follow-up - Someone has additional details either too volumous or sensitive for the radio. The incident is clear but someone needs to get details to operators. These incidents also tend to survive across shifts and it is would be to be able to filter them out. Also to seems like it would help identify who owes reports. Since at least when I was operating rangers would go off shift/ to bed before providing the details ensuring at least one or more handoffs occur before the ranger comes back online."

[wsanchez]

Add an new status call "On Hold" between "New" (previously called "Created") and "Dispatched".

Commit: a49d55d4f4cf38295a8404bd4e81a721ceafbb67

[wsanchez]

Please verify with version 2.0b1 or later.