To Arbitration Arbitrations - To Arbitration Training & Lessons
Back to Arbitration Team Meetings - To Previous meeting - To Next meeting
Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-09-07 (21 CEST, 19 UTC)
1 Preliminaries
- 1.1 Chair opens the Committee Meeting
1.2 Accept the Minutes Minutes of the last Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-08-18 (u60)
2 Businesses - Important Note: Acceptance of Businesses 48 Hours before beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting latest!
2.1 Public and Private part of Arbitration filing added by UlrichSchroeter
Regarding Arbitration team meeting April 28th, topic 2.1 How to handle the arbitration cases wiki (Continued from meeting 2010-03-17) that was added by Hans Verbeek, PD wants to present a software to handle arbitration cases with closed and public parts. Since there is no progress on this project, we've decided last meeting (2010-08-18) to build a workaround. As last meeting the discussion hasn't finished completely - still open point: practical deployment - so this top is again on top
2.2 Review AGM 2010 Arbitration Team Report added by UlrichSchroeter
Board requested Team Reports for the upcoming AGM (see also top 2.2 from Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-07-21. The AGM 2010 Arbitration Team Report 2009-2010 needs to be reviewed.
2.3 New: Initial Case Manager role added by UlrichSchroeter (by suggestion from Ted)
Working on Arbitration Training lessons, describing the procedure to transfer dispute filings from OTRS into the Arbitration queue needs to be handled by either Case Manager or someone other (who will not become CM for this case). A temporary role Initial Case Manager (iCM or ICM) is supposed.
2.4 Top Four added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Top Four" by Title of Top and add your Name
Additional Inputs - Comment: Replace "Additional Inputs"by Description of Top, Description of Reason-Why/Purpose, Additional Comments, Additional Documents, Additional Links, if useful for other Arbitration Team Members to prepare for Arbitration Team Meeting.
2.5 Top Five added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Top Five" by Title of Top and add your Name
Additional Inputs - Comment: Replace "Additional Inputs"by Description of Top, Description of Reason-Why/Purpose, Additional Comments, Additional Documents, Additional Links, if useful for other Arbitration Team Members to prepare for Arbitration Team Meeting.
- et cetera
3 Question Time - Important Note: Questions from CAcert.org Community Members can be added until beginning of Arbitration Team Meeting! As well questions can be asked at "Question Time", without added Question here
3.1 "Question One" added by YourName - Comment: Replace "Question One" by Your Question and add your Name
- et cetera
4 Closing
- 4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 1st Tuesday and the 3rd Wednesday of the month, 20:00 CEST (18 UTC).
- Wednesday, September 22nd, 20 CEST, 18 UTC
- 4.2 Chair closes the Arbitration Team Meeting
- 4.3 Preparation of Minutes
- 4.1 Confirm next Arbitration Team Meeting: Usually every 1st Tuesday and the 3rd Wednesday of the month, 20:00 CEST (18 UTC).
Minutes - Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-09-07
- 21:02 Chair opens the meeting
- Attendees: Mario, Martin, Ted, Uli, Lambert
- Hans checked the channel 1 hour too soon but disappears
Top 1.2 Accept the Minutes of the last Arbitration Team Meeting 2010-08-18
Summary: 2 Ayes, no objections, accepted
Top 2.1 Public and Private part of Arbitration filing
- Summary from last meeting: split arb filing into a public / private part ... private part to be accessible to CM/A's only implementation details not yet focused
- today we have to talk about implementation details, so it was proposed to have a private part to each Arbitration case. How this can be implemented ?
- May other Arbs/CM access the data or only the ones who work on the case?
- summary about that (from last meeting): we have a few requirements here: info must be shared between CM's and A's (learning, take over, progress, reference) info contains private data, so must be protected (not accessible by others) ruling must be public (so people can see that Arbitration works correctly)
- putting all info into the wiki puts very much extra load onto the CM (or arbitrator)
- ACK wiki isn't a DMS system
- if all arb/CMs access to the data we can handle this with wiki ACLs
- I do not see a reason for having a private record. unless, you want to publish all communication uncensored
- ... so someone else can continue the case if CM and Arb vanished in the void.
- Using OTRS:
- Can OTRS be configured for this?
- using OTRS could work... But there needs to be a work flow documented
Use OTRS as repository and record the workflow (like it is currently done) in the WiKi? ... adding links to OTRS for important mails?
- the goal should be to aggregate all mails reagarding one case under one ticket number.
And store meta information publicly in the WiKi
- i don't think, that OTRS reflects the complete workflow ... in wiki there are addtl. more infos that arent handled thru mailing only
- the only thing which needs to be published in the wiki then are ticket number and a ruling. This is the minimum according to the policy.
- I'd add some more things so the parties can follow the progress if interested .. the history log ... And to make it easier for other Arbitrators to follow the logic of the ruling.
- The history log is in OTRS then. So no real need to make more work...
- I'd hate or browse through 20 mails to find the current status of a case. seconded
So at least for me, adding some meta information to the WiKi page saves me other work while working through my cases.
- Other problem with OTRS ... ticket numbers conflicts with arb.case numbers
- we could think about ticket number = arb case number
- every time I send a mail to support I have to remove the s-ticket# from subject line, then the mail goes thru .. otherwise it ends in disputes queue and support never sees my req
- ok, that is a problem.
- Using Mailbox:
- What about creating a mailbox where all mails regarding arbitration are copied to?
- To be used in CC for all mailings like CC for CM .. so CC to CM + store
- does not even need to be a shared folder. Access for DRO in case arb+cm disappear would suffice.
- here we can use sympa also ... one public folder ... nomail for all CM/A, only DRO full access
- Some discipline has to be kept to make sensible ubject lines, otherwise DRO won't find anything.
Requirement: add Arbitration case <a-casenumber> somewhere in the subject line, Imap mailbox
- So, when there is a new DRO, the only thing you need to do is remove access from old DRO, add access to new DRO, and the new DRO immediately has structured access to all case histories
- One uses [a00000000.X] for Arbitration case numbers, to others in "Arbitration case a2010XXXX.Y" format
- please add the case number in the subject, so that when cases are sent to a generic email box, it's easy to filter to separate folders, instead of having to open each and every mail, and I don't care if it's the first, second, third word, but please have it in there
Summary on this topic: enable one mailbox for storing all arb mailings CM/A's have to cc to ... a<casenumber> somewhere in the subject line
- a Certificate is needed for this mailbox
- Not a good idea. If the DRO changes the new one should still be able to read the messages...
- what is the desired as mailboxname?
- Suggestions:
arbarchive
arbitration-archive - accepted: 5/0
- Mario: I will care for it to be created.
- Ted: I'll go through the Arbitrator Training to find out where to put it in
- Suggestions:
- What about the wiki? Will that be used for private data, like proposed last meeting? (with ACL's)
- defered to next meeting
Summary on this topic: enable one mailbox for storing all arb mailings CM/A's have to CC to ... a<casenumber> somewhere in the subject line. Mailbox to be created: arbitration-archive - accepted: 5/0, Mario will take care that mailbox will be created, Ted to include into Arbitration training. Wiki question: defered to next meeting
Top 2.2 Review of https://wiki.cacert.org/AGM/TeamReports/2010#Arbitration_Team_Report_2009-2010
- Author is missing
Summary: Arbitration Team Report reviewed: accepted by 5
Top 2.3 New: Initial Case Manager role
- Working on Arbitration Training lessons, describing the procedure to transfer dispute filings from OTRS into the Arbitration queue needs to be handled by either Case Manager or someone other (who will not become CM for this case). A temporary role Initial Case Manager (iCM or ICM) is supposed. It's just the one who transfers the ORTS ticket to the Wiki and sends the claimant a short confirmation, but does not want to take the case as "real" Case Manager.
- is the ICM to be named in the header ?
- would be good
- De facto the Initial Case Manager will be Case Manager until another one is appointed, but he has expressed his will to hand over the job.
- iCM looks better
- So s/he will probably have some communication with the Claimant, maybe collects informaton provided by the Claimant by his own initiative.
- with the DRO arbitration-archive no impact if iCM hides
- a clean handover is preferred
- iCM have to forward mails to the a-a mailbox
- iCM should be in the header of the status page, but not in the list of open cases
- is the iCM filled by a CM or Arb? or can be filled the iCM by a guy from SE or triage or another?
- so yes, if iCM is alive after half a year thats perfect
- as iCM is the one, who transfers from OTRS disputes into arb queue, this prevents SE's and Triage automaticly
- The iCM is someone with access to the dispute OTRS, so probably a Case Manager or Arb
- why cant the icm not be from traiage or se?
- He should be able to do a Case Manager's job
- as Triage and SE has no access onto Disputes channel and the disputes mailig list to transfer cases from support to arb
- He *will* be Cae Manager, at least for some time
- e.g. triage receives the requests. So they could just file the dispute
- riage moves the disputes filed by users to disputes channel. finished.
- DRP even grants cm role to "support" (which includes triage from times it was written).
- triage move unclear cases to support channel. support decides: this is a dispute. moves it into disputes channel
- Or would we like triage to give a confirmation to the Claimant? I don't think that this would be ideal
- DRP was written by a time, the job triage wasn't thought about. So triage is a new concept in getting support running. So triage is excluded from becoming CM. Triage doesn't have to handle cases activly
- "The personnel within the CAcert support team are Case Managers"
- triage only moves cases to the buckets. CMs are under SP
- The people from triage could just take another role. This might speed up the filing process because the mail does not need to wait for another person to stop by and pick it up.
- Make the citation complete: "The personnel within the CAcert support team are Case Managers, by default, or as directed by the Dispute Resolution Officer." So IMHO if DRO says Support is no CM then we're safe.
- within the last half year .. the role of CM moved into arbteam ... and left the support ... caused by support crisis ... arb backlog ... today starting a case, the initial start is initated if an A takes care about a case finding a CM isn't that a problem ... the delay between dispute filing and picking up a case is the problem
- I am wondering whether you do not consider Triage people to be competent enough to file a dispute...
- triage doesn't file a dispute
- triage are only moving mails nothing more by triage definition!
- I am talking about triage people. Not about the triage role.
- triage people doesn't have such much knowledge about CAcert, its the training phase, the entrance door to support. they'll learn the several CAcert areas
- "I'm only initial CM, so my work is done after the 15 minutes I need to transfer it". (Which is not exactly correct, but that's life)
- As iCM I check the existing arbitrations, for existing case, searching similiar cases and much more ... so this is a job from within arb team
- creating ICM as a new role was intended to get the cases in. Adding new tasks will not help I think
- these tasks are all yet written in training lessons ... only iCM name missing
- Scheduled iCM work ?
- otrs sends notification. everybody from arbteam should receive this notifications. the first who is online, picksup the case and transfers the case into arb queue. work done. yes, and make it little work.
- (this is volunteer work, so it's not right to create a fixed schedule without asking the persons involved if someone cannot make a specific week)
- it's my experience that I wait for others in such cases. And judging from history, I'm not the only one in the team
- this is ok ... as long as you can do it, if nobody else is avail
- But no need to force you in a schedule if I have some spare time anyway.
- The first / next who goes online watches the queues and moves the cases, so here ... the first wins, but all should be familiar with this work
- Minimum job to do is:
- - Add status page
- - Add the case to worklist
- - Send a short mail to the Claimand asking for patience.
- so it seems nobody objects to use this naming in documentation ... practice samples needs to be added to the lessons
Summary: we start with iCM definition, details in arbitration/training/lessons. 4 Ayes. Accepted
Top 3 Question Time
Top 3.1 inactive Arbitrators
- DRO: just a FYI:
- In the board meeting I mentioned two inactive arbitrators
- They have now been removed from the role of arbitrator
- Yesterday evening I sent out emails to three others, asking what they want to do
- Have not received a response, will keep you posted
Will you keep https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Arbitrators up to date?
- yes, once the board has accepted resignation
- But I don't have problems with inactive Arbitrators, I wouldn't force them out just because they are currently busy...
- Now, with the email from PD we loose another arbitrator, one who was active, thats not much a problem ... a problem becomes with arbs don't pickup any case or are unresponsive. i.e. nominated but didn't pickup any case at least as CM
- I ask whether they are inactive because of a specific reason (for instance busy) because that in itself is not a problem for me.
- Yes, they should express themselves, that't ok.
- PD wasn't so much active the last time ... but I'll miss him anyway
- yes, PD knew a lot about our rules
- Also, maybe tell the new ones to seek help if they are unsure...
- that is in the email (but maybe not with so many words)
- maybe something like "being a Case Manager usually is not much work"
<sample case> ... so in such cases I'm doubtful, that he will ever start with arb
- some more infos about inactive cm/a ?
- how we handle the 2 nomintated cm/a 's who never picked up a case ?!?
- no, no response yet. but at least I've sent out the emails. will follow up later this week
- so following the inactive arb procedure aphexer proposed within an arb case and also proposed in one arb meeting ... so give them time of about 2 or 4 weeks (don't remember exactly the times) with recuring mail outs
- yes, will follow protocol
Summary: ongoing process
- DRO: just a FYI:
Top 3.2 Search for replacements for PD
Summary: Mario and Uli picked up one case each as replacement for PD
Top 4.1 next meeting: wednesday 2010-09-22 20:00 CEST, 18:00 UTC
Summary: no objections, next meeting: wednesday 2010-09-22 20:00 CEST, 18:00 UTC
- 23:19 thanks for coming, official meeting closed, Chair closes meeting
Meeting Transcript
Inputs & Thoughts
YYYYMMDD-YourName
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please
YYYYMMDD-YourName
Text / Your Statements, thoughts and e-mail snippets, Please