Brewer questions who should have detected the issue and when
Brewer asks who was tasked with detecting the issue, noting the call taker did the right thing but questioning whether Motorola should have caught it. Gelobter says Motorola was not aware the upgrade broke, and it shouldn't depend on hitting an end user before anyone is alerted. She calls this a key area for the root cause analysis.
The other question I have is, what, just maybe you said this clearly, but in terms of notification, we heard all the back and forth about the timing, but,
and it was a wonderful operator who did that, but should it have been Motorola?
In other words, who,
was tasked with it, even though this wonderful operator and colleagues were the ones that did it.
How should that have been, even though, thank goodness, somebody did say something?
Yeah, I think that that is a very important question and something that we have to get into the very specific details of when we're doing our root cause analysis.
When Motorola made the firmware update, they were not aware that something had been broken.
That is obviously an issue that needs to be resolved.
Similarly, it should not depend on it hitting an end user before anybody else is alerted.
And so those are all areas that we have to figure out how we can do better.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Chair Brewer.