Closed Bug 1264821 Opened 8 years ago Closed 8 years ago

We want to replace the project kick-off form with a contract request form

Categories

(bugzilla.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Extensions: MozProjectReview, defect)

Product:
bugzilla.mozilla.org Graveyard
Component:
Extensions: MozProjectReview
Version:
Production
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: liz, Assigned: dkl)

References

Details

Attachments

(6 files)

New Bugzilla Contract Request Form.pdf
116.73 KB, application/pdf
Details
Modified contract request form.docx
60.30 KB, application/x-msword
Details
Modified contract request form v2.docx
60.61 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Details
1264821_1.patch
18.38 KB, patch
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bugzilla Internal Server Error.PNG
17.95 KB, image/png
Details
Contract Kick-off Form Changes.docx
14.62 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Details 
The attached document shows the proposed questions and information about each one. The general rules are:

1. A legal bug is always created.					
2. A finance bug is always created, but Finance Questions are only generated if the total spend is over $25,000 or a PO is needed, in accordance with the change made in Bug 912793.					
3. An Enterprise Information Security, Rapid Risk Assessment bug is always created except if the "Type of Contract Needed" is Independent Contractor Agreement, Hardware Purchase, Connected Devices Commercial Deal, Firefox Desktop or Mobile Distribution/Bundling Deal, Search Provider Deal, or NDA					
4. No data compliance bugs will be created - these reviews will be conducted in the legal bug when needed.					
5. The finance and security bugs will be blockers of the legal bug and no master bug is needed.					
6. Questions in the General Questions section should appear in Comment 0 of all bugs created from the form.					
7. All questions in the Finance Questions section should appear in the finance bug.					
8. All questions in the Contract Specific Questions section should appear in the Legal bug.

Please let me know any questions you have, if anything requested isn't feasible or practical, and when this might be able to go live. Also, if you'd prefer a link to the Google doc or an attachment in a different format, let me know. Thanks!
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #0)
> Created attachment 8741573 [details]
> New Bugzilla Contract Request Form.pdf
> 
> The attached document shows the proposed questions and information about
> each one. The general rules are:
> 
> 1. A legal bug is always created.					
> 2. A finance bug is always created, but Finance Questions are only generated
> if the total spend is over $25,000 or a PO is needed, in accordance with the
> change made in Bug 912793.					
> 3. An Enterprise Information Security, Rapid Risk Assessment bug is always
> created except if the "Type of Contract Needed" is Independent Contractor
> Agreement, Hardware Purchase, Connected Devices Commercial Deal, Firefox
> Desktop or Mobile Distribution/Bundling Deal, Search Provider Deal, or NDA		
> 
> 4. No data compliance bugs will be created - these reviews will be conducted
> in the legal bug when needed.					
> 5. The finance and security bugs will be blockers of the legal bug and no
> master bug is needed.					
> 6. Questions in the General Questions section should appear in Comment 0 of
> all bugs created from the form.					
> 7. All questions in the Finance Questions section should appear in the
> finance bug.					
> 8. All questions in the Contract Specific Questions section should appear in
> the Legal bug.
> Please let me know any questions you have, if anything requested isn't
> feasible or practical, and when this might be able to go live. Also, if
> you'd prefer a link to the Google doc or an attachment in a different
> format, let me know. Thanks!

Thanks Liz. The form description is nicely detailed. How much time are we being allowed to complete this as it seems like a large undertaking? Quick look, it looks to be about around 2 weeks of work involved not including testing and feedback loop.
I assume once this goes live the old Project Kickoff from will be decommissioned as well. So references to the old form in the wikis, etc. will need to be updated.

dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
We'd appreciate it getting done as soon as is reasonable. No need to push aside high priority projects or make extraordinary efforts, but the sooner the better. If it looks like it needs to be put off for a few months for any reason, let me know because then it may not be worth it since the CLM project is back on and bugzilla will probably be replaced by another system for contract requests. You;re right that the current kick-off form would be decommissioned. Can the new form live at the same URL?
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #2)
> If it looks like it needs to be put off for a few months for any
> reason, let me know because then it may not be worth it since the CLM
> project is back on and bugzilla will probably be replaced by another system
> for contract requests.

This part concerns me. Does this mean that even if we were able to implement the new form in less than a month and go live, it will be obsoleted anyway in the near future? What timeframe are we talking for replacement with new system?

> Can the new form live at the same URL?

Sure.

dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Hi Dave - The timeline is unclear at this point. I understand your reluctance to work on something that will become obsolete within some number of months. From the bug recipient side, we've been dealing with a lot of confusion and frustration from the current form for a long time and would love to see it work better for everyone even if it will be replaced. It also could help us see what questions work and which are confusing or frustrating or not useful to help with designing the new system intake process. That said, if it doesn't make sense given all the work your team is juggling, an alternative would be to just make some tweaks to the current form.  Attached is a redline with changes to the current form. I've removed a lot of questions, in some cases because they aren't relevant to contracts, in some to remove asking for the same info more than once, in some because security doesn't need to gather that info up front, and lastly because data compliance bugs are no longer needed. I also reworded other questions to hopefully make them clearer. The logic can be simpler because Legal, Finance, and Security would like a bug opened every time.
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
I forgot to add a question that was requested, so this version has that.

Also, it's possible that we'll stick with Bugzilla as the intake mechanism for contract requests rather than implement another product. Hopefully we'll know about that and a timeline within the next couple of weeks.
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #4)
> Created attachment 8743087 [details]
> Modified contract request form.docx
> 
> Hi Dave - The timeline is unclear at this point. I understand your
> reluctance to work on something that will become obsolete within some number
> of months. From the bug recipient side, we've been dealing with a lot of
> confusion and frustration from the current form for a long time and would
> love to see it work better for everyone even if it will be replaced. It also
> could help us see what questions work and which are confusing or frustrating
> or not useful to help with designing the new system intake process. That
> said, if it doesn't make sense given all the work your team is juggling, an
> alternative would be to just make some tweaks to the current form.  Attached
> is a redline with changes to the current form. I've removed a lot of
> questions, in some cases because they aren't relevant to contracts, in some
> to remove asking for the same info more than once, in some because security
> doesn't need to gather that info up front, and lastly because data
> compliance bugs are no longer needed. I also reworded other questions to
> hopefully make them clearer. The logic can be simpler because Legal,
> Finance, and Security would like a bug opened every time.

I'll take care of the redline changes -- I'll leave the larger changes for dkl.
Assignee: nobody → dylan
Thanks! Please add the following additional question after "Basis for Payment": "Cap on reimbursable expenses, if any" with a box to fill in an amount. It should be required.
I am sorry, there was higher-priority work on a component for the security team, which has been taking most of my attention.
That work is almost done and I'll update this bug shortly with the status of this form.
Alright, this will get in today and assuming it gets reviewed monday, it'll be in the next push.
Thanks!
Removing the points of contact means the first bug filed (the primary one) will have nobody in the CC list. Was that intentional?
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Attached patch 1264821_1.patch — — Splinter Review 
work so far
Assignee: dylan → dkl
I proposed in the initial description that there be no master tracking bug, but I guess if we're just updating the current form, the general functionality won't change so there will be a master bug. Is that correct? I hadn't realized that the points of contact field created a cc list for the master bug. Being cced on the master bug isn't all that useful since all the activity takes place in the child bugs. There's a field for ccs in the legal section, but it either doesn't work or people don't use it. Ideally, there would be one field for people to enter those who need to see what's going on with the contract and they would be cced on all the generated bugs. Can that be done?
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Hi - Just checking in.
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #14)
> Hi - Just checking in.

Sorry for lack of communication on this. I have been working on it here and there among other projects and hope to have something up for your review before end of week.

dkl
Thanks!
Hi. Any progress on this?
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #17)
> Hi. Any progress on this?

Sorry for taking so long on this. I just need to debug a few things today and will try to get this put up on our test site for your feedback/approval.

dkl
That's great! Thanks!
Hey. I finally have something ready for your review/testing up on our test instance. Please take a look and put it through its paces. 

https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/form.moz.project.review

dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Thanks so much. My suggested approach is for you to make the initial changes listed below and then I'll ask a few others to review and test and provide their feedback. Let me know if you have any concerns about that approach.

When I tried to submit the request I got an Internal Server Error message. Do you know why that's happening? I'll attach a screenshot.

Initial Changes:

* Add the following additional question after "Basis for Payment": "Cap on reimbursable expenses, if any" with a box to fill in an amount. It should be required.

* Move "cc list" to the Initial Questions section and set it up so the CCs are added to all the child bugs (assuming that can be done, and with the proviso that someone may object to that when more people test, leading to a discussion about the merits and risks)

* Change "Type of Contract Needed" to "What are you doing?"

* Revise the "Type of Contract Needed" (now "What are you doing?") drop down list to: "Engaging a new Vendor Company," "Engaging an individual (independent contractor, temp agency worker, incorporated)," "Adding a new SOW with a Vendor," "Extending an SOW or renewing a contract," "Purchasing software," "Purchasing Hardware," "Signing up for an online service," "An agreement with a Partner," "Need a partner NDA," and "Other." If it isn't a lot of work, a text box for "other" would be helpful, but isn't essential. 

* Change rules so that everything under "SOW Details" only opens up if "Engaging a new Vendor Company," "Engaging an individual," or "Adding a new SOW with a Vendor" is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list.

* Change "Legal" as a section header to "Contract Specific Questions"

* Remove "of Legal Portion?" from "Time Frame For Completion of Legal Portion?" and then move it to the Initial Questions section.

* Move "Priority" to the Initial Questions section.

* Change "Security Review" to "Vendor Security Review"

* Remove the 1st 2 questions under "Security Review" and change the explanation for "Extra Information" to "Please add any additional information related to data handling by the Vendor you think the security team should know."

* "Right to Terminate Contract" should not be required.

* In the "Summary" explanation, "ot" should be "or"

* We'd like to add some questions that open up only if "Engaging an individual..." is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list. Those are:
   - Is this someone we've worked with before?
      + If yes, enter the bug number for the previous work or note that this is a former employee 
   - Has this person incorporated? (sole proprietorship or similar form)
   - Will the person be engaged through a staffing agency?
   - Does the person have other clients?
   - Does the person provide services similar to a paid Mozilla employee?
      + If yes, is the person primarily being engaged due to a temporary increase in workload or as backfill for an employee on leave?
   - Will the person be managing his or her own time?
   - Will the person be using his or her own equipment?
   - Will the person be regularly working at a Mozilla facility?
   - Will the person be supervising Mozilla employees?   
 
* Change "Vendor Services Location" to "Where will the services be provided?" and the box from a drop down list to a text box

* In the explanation for "Basis of Payment" add after "per deliverable" "per milestone"

* Change "Average/Max Hours:" to "Max Hours/Week (& Average if different):" and change the explanation to just "If paid hourly"

* Remove "When do the items need to be purchased by?:" from the Finance section

* Remove "Total Cost:" from the Finance questions, but have the answer to "Total Not to Exceed Amount:" from the Legal section show up in the finance bug.

* Replace the current "Key Initiative" drop down list with: 
Business Support
Connected Devices
Firefox
Firefox Mobile
Firefox Platform
Labs/Research/H3

* Replace "Product Line" with "Internal Org," move it to the "Initial Questions" section, and replace the current drop down list with:
Platform Engineering 
Firefox
Innovation
Connected Devices
Marketing
BD/Legal/Policy
Finance & Accounting
WPR
IT
People
Other
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Here's the error message
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #21)
> When I tried to submit the request I got an Internal Server Error message.
> Do you know why that's happening? I'll attach a screenshot.

Probably due to a component not being created yet on the test instance. Will take a look.

> Initial Changes:
> 
> * Add the following additional question after "Basis for Payment": "Cap on
> reimbursable expenses, if any" with a box to fill in an amount. It should be
> required.

Done

> * Move "cc list" to the Initial Questions section and set it up so the CCs
> are added to all the child bugs (assuming that can be done, and with the
> proviso that someone may object to that when more people test, leading to a
> discussion about the merits and risks)

Done

> * Change "Type of Contract Needed" to "What are you doing?"

Done
 
> * Revise the "Type of Contract Needed" (now "What are you doing?") drop down
> list to: "Engaging a new Vendor Company," "Engaging an individual
> (independent contractor, temp agency worker, incorporated)," "Adding a new
> SOW with a Vendor," "Extending an SOW or renewing a contract," "Purchasing
> software," "Purchasing Hardware," "Signing up for an online service," "An
> agreement with a Partner," "Need a partner NDA," and "Other." If it isn't a
> lot of work, a text box for "other" would be helpful, but isn't essential. 

** Will need a new list of contract types that should not trigger a security review.

> * Change rules so that everything under "SOW Details" only opens up if
> "Engaging a new Vendor Company," "Engaging an individual," or "Adding a new
> SOW with a Vendor" is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list.

Working on this now.

> * Change "Legal" as a section header to "Contract Specific Questions"

Done
 
> * Remove "of Legal Portion?" from "Time Frame For Completion of Legal
> Portion?" and then move it to the Initial Questions section.

Done

> * Move "Priority" to the Initial Questions section.

Done

> * Change "Security Review" to "Vendor Security Review"

Done

> * Remove the 1st 2 questions under "Security Review" and change the
> explanation for "Extra Information" to "Please add any additional
> information related to data handling by the Vendor you think the security
> team should know."

Done

> * "Right to Terminate Contract" should not be required.

Done
 
> * In the "Summary" explanation, "ot" should be "or"

Done
 
> * We'd like to add some questions that open up only if "Engaging an
> individual..." is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list.
> Those are:
>    - Is this someone we've worked with before?
>       + If yes, enter the bug number for the previous work or note that this
> is a former employee 
>    - Has this person incorporated? (sole proprietorship or similar form)
>    - Will the person be engaged through a staffing agency?
>    - Does the person have other clients?
>    - Does the person provide services similar to a paid Mozilla employee?
>       + If yes, is the person primarily being engaged due to a temporary
> increase in workload or as backfill for an employee on leave?
>    - Will the person be managing his or her own time?
>    - Will the person be using his or her own equipment?
>    - Will the person be regularly working at a Mozilla facility?
>    - Will the person be supervising Mozilla employees?   
>  
> * Change "Vendor Services Location" to "Where will the services be
> provided?" and the box from a drop down list to a text box

Done

> * In the explanation for "Basis of Payment" add after "per deliverable" "per
> milestone"

Done
 
> * Change "Average/Max Hours:" to "Max Hours/Week (& Average if different):"
> and change the explanation to just "If paid hourly"

Done

> * Remove "When do the items need to be purchased by?:" from the Finance
> section

Done

> * Remove "Total Cost:" from the Finance questions, but have the answer to
> "Total Not to Exceed Amount:" from the Legal section show up in the finance
> bug.

Done

> * Replace the current "Key Initiative" drop down list with: 
> Business Support
> Connected Devices
> Firefox
> Firefox Mobile
> Firefox Platform
> Labs/Research/H3

Done
 
> * Replace "Product Line" with "Internal Org," move it to the "Initial
> Questions" section, and replace the current drop down list with:
> Platform Engineering 
> Firefox
> Innovation
> Connected Devices
> Marketing
> BD/Legal/Policy
> Finance & Accounting
> WPR
> IT
> People
> Other

Done
Okay new version up for testing/feedback. Also will need a new list of contract types that should not trigger a security review.

https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/form.moz.project.review

dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Moving requirements from bug  1291516 here so as not to conflict. Will make a new revision with the suggested changes.

> Currently the data compliance bug is generated if a person answers Y to the
> required question on "Mozilla Data"
> 
> (1) We would like to remove the question (and therefore, remove the
> dependent bug)

Data compliance bug is no longer being generated with the latest revision of this patch. Current work is visible at:

https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/form.moz.project.review

> (2) We would like to add the following three questions into the Legal
> Section of the Project Kickoff Form, below the current question "Vendor
> Services to be Provided".  These are optional questions.
> 
> "Will the vendor have access to employee, contributor, or user data? If yes,
> please explain."
> 
> "Will the vendor require access to Mozilla systems (e.g. workday, email,
> google docs, servers). If yes, please explain.?"
> 
> "Will the vendor be physically onsite at a Mozilla office. If yes, where and
> when.?"

Will work on adding these.

dkl
Thanks so much David for all the work on the form and for combining the bugs. I'll respond to your question today. I'll also check out the current test form and ask that others on this bug do so also.
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Looks really good from my perspective. Following are a few items I've discovered so far to fix.

* People added to cc list don't show up in cc list of legal bug, but do show in RRA and finance bug cc lists

* The Vendor Security Review questions weren't displayed in the form when Yes selected for "Data Access" 

* When "Engaging an individual (independent contractor, temp agency worker, incorporated)" is selected, the new questions in comment 21 aren't opening up. The questions that should be triggered by selecting that option are:

 - Is this someone we've worked with before?
      + If yes, enter the bug number for the previous work or note that this is a former employee 
   - Has this person incorporated? (sole proprietorship or similar form)
   - Will the person be engaged through a staffing agency?
   - Does the person have other clients?
   - Does the person provide services similar to a paid Mozilla employee?
      + If yes, is the person primarily being engaged due to a temporary increase in workload or as backfill for an employee on leave?
   - Will the person be managing his or her own time?
   - Will the person be using his or her own equipment?
   - Will the person be regularly working at a Mozilla facility?
   - Will the person be supervising Mozilla employees?

The new questions can go under the heading "Independent Contractor Questions"
Jonathan - Can you please advise whether you don't want an RRA bug opened if any of the options under "What are you doing?" are selected? If yes, which options?
Erica, Jeff, Jonathan, Manny, Shoshana, and Marshall - When dkl provides the next update, could you please review the form and resulting bugs when you fill it out different ways and advise of any needed changes? Thanks.
Flags: needinfo?(sisaac)
Flags: needinfo?(mnieto)
Flags: needinfo?(merwin)
Flags: needinfo?(jgarver)
Flags: needinfo?(echoe)
You too Winnie
Flags: needinfo?(waoieong)
Liz: here are the answers to your questions in c29...

(RRA-YES) Engaging a new vendor company
(RRA-NO) Engaging an individual
(RRA-YES) Adding a new SOW with a vendor
(RRA-YES) Extending an SOW or renewing a contract
(RRA-YES) Purchasing Software
(RRA-NO) Purchasing Hardware
(RRA-YES) Signing up for an online service
(RRA-NO) An agreement with a partner
(RRA-NO) Need a partner NDA

Thanks!
Sure, I'll review. Thanks Liz.
Flags: needinfo?(echoe)
(In reply to David Lawrence [:dkl] from comment #26
> > (2) We would like to add the following three questions into the Legal
> > Section of the Project Kickoff Form, below the current question "Vendor
> > Services to be Provided".  These are optional questions.
> > 
> > "Will the vendor have access to employee, contributor, or user data? If yes,
> > please explain."

This is in the initial questions section already so I did not add it again.
 
> > "Will the vendor require access to Mozilla systems (e.g. workday, email,
> > google docs, servers). If yes, please explain.?"

Done
 
> > "Will the vendor be physically onsite at a Mozilla office. If yes, where and
> > when.?"

Done

I have made the additional changes requested and have uploaded a new version of the form for feedback/testing.

https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/form.moz.project.review

Thanks
dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Hi David - I was not able to log into the link above to take a look at your good work - I tried my normal Mozilla log-in as well as Persona and neither worked.....any tips?  Thanks, Jeff
After the bug has been filed, in the finance bug under Vendor Cost: >$25k 

Is there a reason why this portion shows in the description? If the user selects >$25k then a finance bug kicks off, this doesn't need to show.
DKL:

* The SOW details section should show up when "Engaging an individual..." is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list (that's in addition to the Independent Contractor Questions).

* Since we now have the separate NDA request form in the Legal product, if someone selects "Need a partner NDA" from the "What are you doing?" drop down list, could a message pop-up that says "For an NDA, please use this form instead: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/form.nda" or something like that?

* Per Jonathan's reply in comment 32, an RRA bug shouldn't be opened if "Engaging an individual..." is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list.

* I realized today that I set this up so there's now no place to enter the cost if this isn't a vendor or independent contractor agreement. Please add "Total Cost" with "Please enter the total cost if a one time payment or the total for the entire contract term if monthly or annual payments" as the explanation and have it show up under "Initial Questions" if "Extending an SOW or renewing a contract," "Purchasing software," "Purchasing Hardware," "Signing up for an online service," or "Other" is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list. It should be required.

* Is it possible to allow attachments to be submitted with the request form? If so, can they be attached to both the generated finance and legal bugs?

* We've created some new components in the legal product recently. Would it be possible to have the legal bugs opened in different components depending on the selection made under "What are you doing?" If yes, then please make the component:

     "Vendor/Services" if "Engaging a new Vendor Company," "Adding a new SOW with a Vendor," "Extending an SOW or renewing a contract,"  "Purchasing Hardware," or "Other" is selected

     "Independent Contractor Agreement" if "Engaging an individual (independent contractor, temp agency worker, incorporated)" is selected 

     "Firefox Distribution or Other Partner Agreement" if "An agreement with a Partner" is selected

I'm waiting for guidance re whether "Purchasing software" and "Signing up for an online service" should open a "Vendor/Services" bug or a "Licensing" bug.


Erica and Jonathan - 

* Do you need to see the answer to "Where will the services be provided?" Just wondering if this should stay in the "Initial Questions" section or just show up in the Legal bug.

* Are you OK with the new set up where there's no master bug, rather the finance and RRA bugs block the legal bug? 

Erica - 

* In answer to your question, this is set up so that a finance bug is always opened, but the finance questions aren't asked if under $25,000, so having whether above or below $25,000 included in the finance bug makes sense. I asked for that a finance bug already be opened because I thought you had requested that. If you don't want a finance bug opened every time, let us know.

* Do you want the question "Please provide the budget line number" or something like that added? If yes, how should it be worded and should it be required or not?
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Flags: needinfo?(jclaudius)
Flags: needinfo?(echoe)
Flags: needinfo?(dkl)
Hi,

I seem to be having the same issue as Jeff.  I can sign into Bugzilla generally but not to test this.
Flags: needinfo?(sisaac)
Liz: It doesn't matter where the service will be provided, I would prefer a master bug though, it's helpful when we try to find out if a review of a specific type is filed and being worked on.
Flags: needinfo?(jclaudius)
Liz - I'm okay with having a finance bug opened, I can just close it if not needed. 

>* Do you want the question "Please provide the budget line number" or something like that added? If yes, >how should it be worded and should it be required or not?

I would like to leave this portion out for now. We're using a different system so I'm not requiring a specific line item from the requester. 
Thanks.
Flags: needinfo?(echoe)
(In reply to Jeff Garver (use Need Info pls) from comment #35)
> Hi David - I was not able to log into the link above to take a look at your
> good work - I tried my normal Mozilla log-in as well as Persona and neither
> worked.....any tips?  Thanks, Jeff

(In reply to Shoshana Isaac from comment #38)
> Hi,
> 
> I seem to be having the same issue as Jeff.  I can sign into Bugzilla
> generally but not to test this.

I have emailed you both with new passwords for bugzilla-dev.allizom.org that you can use to login.

dkl
Thanks, David - I was able to get in.

Liz - maybe we connect tomorrow - I did a quick review and have some comments - but before posting would like to share with you as there may be some reason things were done as they were.

Dave - once I meet with Liz I will post a few comments.

Thanks,

Jeff
Flags: needinfo?(jgarver)
Flags: needinfo?(merwin)
David - I gave Liz a few comments and she will update you and/or this Bug - thanks!
Where it says "Max Hours/Week (average if different):"  can it instead say "Max Hours/Week (and average if different):" (adding "and").

Thanks!
David:

Jeff had the following great suggestions:

* Make "What are doing?" the first question

* Remove the summary field and have the name of the bug be "Contract for [answer to "What are doing?"] with [answer to "Vendor/Contractor/Partner Name"]"

* Move "Vendor/Contractor/Partner Name" to be the next item after "description"

* Add "Don't know" to the drop down list for "Data Access"

* Remove the "Mozilla Related," "Privacy Policy," and "Right to Terminate Contract" fields

Please also make Shoshana's requested change.

Jonathan - Let's discuss the master bug question offline.
David - I spoke with Jonathan and he's OK with seeing how things work without a master bug. 

I also got confirmation that "Purchasing software" and "Signing up for an online service" should open a "Licensing" bug.

There are changes requested in a lot of different comments. Would it be helpful if I consolidated them?
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #46)
 
> I also got confirmation that "Purchasing software" and "Signing up for an
> online service" should open a "Licensing" bug.

I will need more details on what the "Licensing" bug should look like. Such as product/component, questions to include in the comment, etc. 

> There are changes requested in a lot of different comments. Would it be
> helpful if I consolidated them?

Yes please. Normally I would be fine with going back and pulling out the needed changes myself but in this case they have grown to be lengthy and would be good to be in a well constructed list.

Thanks
dkl
Flags: needinfo?(dkl)
Here are the requested changes. Please let me know if you have any questions or any of the changes aren't possible.
Flags: needinfo?(mnieto)
Since I can't test this in the testing environment, I've asked Erica to do so and this looks fine from our end.
Flags: needinfo?(waoieong)
I have made the additional changes requested and have uploaded a new version of the form for feedback/testing.

https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/form.moz.project.review

List of changes:

- Made "What are doing?" the first question
- Removed the summary field and have the name of the bug be "Contract for [answer to "What are doing?"] with [answer to "Vendor/Contractor/Partner Name"]"
- Move "Vendor/Contractor/Partner Name" to be the next item after "description"
- Added "Don't know" to the drop down list for "Data Access"
- Removed the "Mozilla Related," "Privacy Policy," and "Right to Terminate Contract" fields
- Added “and” to "Max Hours/Week (average if different):"  so it says "Max Hours/Week (and average if different):"
- SOW details section now shows up when "Engaging an individual..." is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list.
- Removed NDA from "What are you doing?: drop down and put section at top outlining the other custom forms available.
- RRA bug not opened if "Engaging an individual..." is selected from the "What are you doing?" drop down list.
- Added Total Cost field.
- Added ability to add attachment to the legal form.
- Legal bugs choose component to file under bases on value of "What are you doing?".

Thanks
dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Thanks! This looks really good. The only problems I've seen so far:

I chose  "Engaging a new Vendor Company" but the Component for the resulting legal bug is "Contract Request" rather than "Vendor/Services."

The list of Components doesn't include "Independent Contractor Agreement" so I got an error message when I tried to submit a request for an individual.
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #52)
> Thanks! This looks really good. The only problems I've seen so far:
> 
> I chose  "Engaging a new Vendor Company" but the Component for the resulting
> legal bug is "Contract Request" rather than "Vendor/Services."

This was a type that is fixed now on bugzilla-dev.allizom.org.

> 
> The list of Components doesn't include "Independent Contractor Agreement" so
> I got an error message when I tried to submit a request for an individual.

I have also added the missing components on bugzilla-dev as well which is because the data is out of sync from production. We should probably refresh that soon.

dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Thanks for fixing so quickly. There are a couple of glitches in the Independent Contractor agreement bug that was created from my request, Bug 1154572. 

  *The question "If yes, enter the  number for the previous work or note that this is a former employee:" and its answer are listed twice, and the word "bug" is missing. 
  *Also, while the SOW questions were asked in the request form, they aren't showing up in the bug.

There is a problem when any one of multiple options is selected for "What are you doing?" - An error message comes up saying I need to add a description when I already have. I had this happen when I selected Hardware Purchase, Software Purchase, and Engaging a new vendor company. I didn't try others, but I think this is a new problem. I'll attach screenshots.

One other fix:

The Internal Organization list needs to be updated to:
Firefox
Connected Devices
Emerging Technologies
Innovation
Marketing
BD/Legal/Policy
Finance & Accounting
WPR
IT
People
Internal Comms
Metrics
Other
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #54)
> Thanks for fixing so quickly. There are a couple of glitches in the
> Independent Contractor agreement bug that was created from my request, Bug
> 1154572. 
> 
>   *The question "If yes, enter the  number for the previous work or note
> that this is a former employee:" and its answer are listed twice, and the
> word "bug" is missing. 
>   *Also, while the SOW questions were asked in the request form, they aren't
> showing up in the bug.
> 
> There is a problem when any one of multiple options is selected for "What
> are you doing?" - An error message comes up saying I need to add a
> description when I already have. I had this happen when I selected Hardware
> Purchase, Software Purchase, and Engaging a new vendor company. I didn't try
> others, but I think this is a new problem. I'll attach screenshots.
> 
> One other fix:
> 
> The Internal Organization list needs to be updated to:

All changes made and new version on our test instance for feedback.

https://bugzilla-dev.allizom.org/form.moz.project.review

dkl
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
Thia looks great. The only small correction I saw is that Total Cost needs to show up when "Purchasing hardware" selected. Once that's fixed, let's go live!
Flags: needinfo?(liz)
To https://github.com/mozilla-bteam/bmo.git
   10bf6d4..aad9a94  master -> master

Will be in next weeks push.

dkl
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
thanks
Thanks. Since this is so different, it would be helpful to add a temporary note at the top. Can we do that? It can say:

"Welcome to the new contract kick-off form! We have revised the kick-off form to be specifically for contracts and to be easier to use. There's no longer a master bug. A legal bug will be the main bug, and finance and security bugs will be blockers of it. You can add attachments as part of submitting your request. If you have any questions or comments, please contact liz@mozilla.com."

Please add it ASAP. Thanks.
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #59)
> Thanks. Since this is so different, it would be helpful to add a temporary
> note at the top. Can we do that? It can say:
> 
> "Welcome to the new contract kick-off form! We have revised the kick-off
> form to be specifically for contracts and to be easier to use. There's no
> longer a master bug. A legal bug will be the main bug, and finance and
> security bugs will be blockers of it. You can add attachments as part of
> submitting your request. If you have any questions or comments, please
> contact liz@mozilla.com."
> 
> Please add it ASAP. Thanks.

ok. Will be in the next code push.

dkl
Another small change request - please add "Legal Review:" and, if it doesn't already have it: "Finance Review:" at the beginning of the name of Legal and Finance bugs generated from this form. Thanks.
(In reply to Liz Compton [:liz] from comment #61)
> Another small change request - please add "Legal Review:" and, if it doesn't
> already have it: "Finance Review:" at the beginning of the name of Legal and
> Finance bugs generated from this form. Thanks.

Also done.

dkl
Thanks!
Product: bugzilla.mozilla.org → bugzilla.mozilla.org Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: