[lnsp]

According to GH Status (https://www.githubstatus.com/), everything is fine. Gotta love functional status pages.

edit: Nevermind, they just reported "degraded performance" for GitHub Actions, Issues, and Pull Requests.

[rossmohax]

Didn't they have actual error rate graphs on that page back in a day?

[speedgoose]

Yes, and some response times too. It was actually useful.

[sc90]

They have updated it.

[agomez314]

i wonder how they even work? Like, do they just display a green css button instead of _actually_ doing a healthcheck?

[aseipp]

Yes they do, because very rarely would such a healthcheck kind of setup actually work in practice, at a large enough size, for a user-facing dashboard. If you want a healthcheck, look at a Grafana dashboard, not a status page.

By the way, I don't know of a single place where this isn't the case, where a human signs off on and updates the status page during large events (at least at the final decision.) Some of it will be automated, sure, like red flags being raised to operators. But at a certain point it is not possible to automate this in some level to achieve second-level accuracy or whatever; the system is rarely (if ever) in a binary state of "working perfectly" or "not working", but somewhere in between. You can't just fire off a big red error bar every time a blip occurs at a place like GitHub. The system is constantly "in motion". The logical conclusion is to just expose your 50+ Grafana dashboards publicly to every user. Isn't that the most honest "overview" of what is happening with your product? Except this often can't tell them useful things either.

People on here will also mumble about SLAs but if a customer wants a kickback or is seriously worried about events like these, they're generally talking to account managers, not posting on internet forums. That said, a lot of them get weaselly about that stuff unless you're already negotiating prices with an AM in the first place...

[drstewart]

Probably requires manual updates. It seems like more and more places have moved to this paradigm now that status pages are tied to SLAs which are tied to money. One might call it the politicization of status pages.

[mkl95]

AWS do the same thing. Pretty sure someone updates it manually.

[heipei]

I can't imagine the status page is mentioned anywhere in the contracts. I would think that the only language that is included is that it's the customers responsibility to track and notify the vendor (Github) about any downtime, and to do that within 48 hours of the downtime having occured. And only then will the customer be eligible for compensation, probably in the form of free service credits.

My personal take is that this wording is the reason you see so few public status pages in general, especially ones with automatic and minute-by-minute status history. Better to put it on the customer to have accurate monitoring in place, which most people simply won't have.

[lowercased]

It seemed like a good faith effort... Between when I was told about it (which seemed like it was very early on) to when I saw the status page change (saw it 'all clear' at first) was... 3 minutes? Yes, it's not 'real time' but they don't seem to be intentionally hiding something for hours on end. There may be some consequences for reporting on false positives too quickly as well.

[mirekrusin]

Maybe they run it from github actions?

[diogenesjunior]

You gonna sue them?

[nefasti]

Fraud implies intent.

[asciimike]

1) SLAs are almost always customer initiated (see "Customer Must Request Financial Credit." in https://cloud.google.com/appengine/sla for example)

2) The SLA isn't tied to the status page at all, a customer can request an SLA refund for any reason provided they have proof of damages.

TL;DR: status pages are a helpful tool to let folks know something's wrong and that the team isn't asleep at the wheel, not a legally binding contract.

[na85]

Not a lawyer, but my understanding of this issue is that it constitutes fraud if and only if the status page is a contractually- or legally-binding warrant as to the status of their services.

>why is it legal in the tech industry?

Tech has a history of abusing legal gray areas or else simply ignoring laws it finds inconvenient, enabled by toothless and sluggish enforcement, and using profits from lawbreaking to fund lobbying campaigns to retro-actively make things legal. For recent examples see Uber, Airbnb, Clearview, et al.