• Arbitrations
• a20090810.3

• Case Number: a20090810.3
• Status: closed
• Claimants: Nicholas E. Bebout
• Respondents: CAcert

• Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter

• Arbitrator: Mario Lipinski

• Former Arbitrator: Christopher Hoth
• Date of arbitration start: 2009-09-11
• Date of ruling: 2010-08-30
• Case closed: 2010-08-30
• Complaint:

[20090808]
I hereby file this dispute to obtain information in my role as an
individual board member (not on behalf of the board).

I request a list of the people who have more than 150 points, along with
how many points they have.

• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator Mario Lipinski (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Nicholas E. Bebout (C), Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter (CM), Case: a20090810.3

History Log

• 2009-08-08 (C): Claimant accepts the CCA
• 2009-09-11 (CM): i'll take this as CM
• 2009-10-12 (CM): request for progress report. ongoing discussion about the query
• 2009-10-26 (CM): request for progress report: (A) request will end with 0 results, caused by the system change that was made within this month, limiting all points to 150. Who ordered that? Who executes this?
• 2009-10-27 (CM): further infos requested from (A)
• 2009-11-11 (CM): requesting progress report from (A) by email
• 2009-11-11 (A): there are no more users with more than 150 points.
• 2009-11-11 (A): (C) doesn't answers on request, close before ruling
• 2009-12-08 (CM): requesting progress report from (A) and (C) by email
• 2010-02-28 (CM): review on this case
• 2010-02-28 (CM): request to critical sysadmin to forward email communication between (A) back in Nov 2009
• 2010-02-28 (Wytze): detailed report on communications that happens in this case between 2009-09-11 and 2009-11-11
• 2010-06-29 (CM): sent infos to (DRO) and request how to proceed
• 2010-07-16 (CM): sent reminder to (DRO)
• 2010-07-29 (CM): sent reminder #2 to (DRO)
• 2010-08-24 (CM): sending reminder #3 to (DRO)
• 2010-08-25 (DRO): Progress Report: let's discuss this on Friday evening or this weekend; I emailed Christopher, no response yet
• 2010-08-29 (CM): log from board-meeting 2010-08-29, (A) board to accept resignation as arbitrator and case manager of C Hoth, reason inactivity
• 2010-08-29 (A): I'll take care about this case
• 2010-08-30 (CM): forwarded all communications to new (A)
• 2010-08-30 (CM): information sent to (C) about replacement of (A)
• 2010-08-30 (A): to (Critical team): please execute the following query

  • SELECT u.fname, u.lname, u.email, SUM(n.points) AS
    pts FROM users u LEFT JOIN notary n ON u.id = n.to GROUP BY u.id HAVING 
    SUM(n.points) > 150;

• 2010-08-30 (Wytze): result set: Empty set
• 2010-08-30 (A): There are no users having more than 150 points. Ruling, Closing.

Discovery

• 2009-11-11 (A) -> (CM): there are no more users with more than 150 points. Nick doesn´t answered to my mail - and at this time they set all users to max 150pt. So I informed nick about this and will write the ruling (or closing ).

• 2010-02-28 (CM): same problem as case a20090902.1. No Ruling, only information above from (A) rcvd me. To less to close the case. To much to appoint another (A). As (A) didn't respond on progress reports, and believing, that

• 2010-02-28 (CM): ruling is unknown, probably order to system engineer to execute the query
• 2010-02-28 (Wytze): detailed report on communications that happens in this case between 2009-09-11 and 2009-11-11

  • I checked my mail archives, but I did not find such a request.
    Originally there was a request concerning a20090810.3 on
    11.09.2009, to which I replied on 12.09.2009 with a request for
    an explicit SQL query rather than the vague description given.
    After that a big discussion started (including you a.o.), but it
    did not result in issuing a specific query execution request.
    
    On 12.10.2009 you sent two questions with regard to progress on
    arbitrations a20090810.3 and a20090902.1. The second one (a20090902.1)
    was immediately followed by a query execution request from the
    arbitrator Christopher Hoth; after that I executed that query and
    returned the result to Christopher Hoth only, but informed you a.o.
    of the action taken.
    Nothing happened with respect to a20090810.3 on that day or later.
    So frankly I am somewhat surprised by the statement in Christopher's
    e-mail of 11.11.2009: "there are no more users with more than 150 points."
    It could be true, but it's not based on the results of a query executed
    by me or anyone else in the critical system administrator team.

• 2010-06-29 (CM): one sidenote: (A)'s statement "there are no more users with more than 150 points." can be assumed also from another arbitration case a20091118.1 where Guillaume R states in an email dated 2010-03-20: "The ttp flag is not enough, you need more that 150 points to grant TTP points. As of today, I can see Robert has only 150 points and no more flag." and the infos found in arbitration case a20091118.1 in (R)'s statement dated 2009-12-06

  • I was asked to remove the super-assurer status of all super-assurers.
    I did modify those persons accounts to limit their CAcert-Points to 150
    points, to remove their super-assurer status. (Including Robert
    C. Account)
    The system always enforces (previously and now), that people that have
    150 points can issue maximum 35 points.
    Since TTP issues more than 35 points, the person that does a TTP
    assurance has to have at least 200 points, to be able to issue more than
    35 points.
    
    I only did changes to the database, by limiting the points of the
    accounts, I was asked to.
    I did not do any changes to the webserver. The application behaviour is
    still the same as it was before.
    Therefore the claim is false, it is a wrong accusation.

Ruling

A SQL query has been executed to obtain the requested information. Reviewing the results there are no privacy issues with publishing it. As of today, there are no users with more than 150 points.

Execution

• 2009-11-11 (A): sent info to (C)

Similar cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseSystemTasks