- Case Number: a20091126.2
- Status: closed
- Respondents: CAcert
- Case Manager: none
- Arbitrator: Alexander Prinsier
- Date of arbitration start: 2009-12-11
- Date of ruling: 2010-06-18
- Case closed: 2010-06-18
- Complaint: removal of in-active case managers and arbitrators procedure
Hi, I hereby file a dispute, to build a procedure how in-active Case Managers and Arbitrators can be identified and then removed from the Arbitrators team. i.e. ping mail ? ping mail as private mail ? ping mail in the arbitrators discussion mailing list ? How long the initiator of the ping mail have to wait before a CM / A can be removed from the team? Whats about many running arbitrations that doesn't show any progress for a long time. How to define "long time" ? 2 weeks? 1 month? 2 months? What's the role of a CM in such a case? Should he request a progress report from the Arbitrator? What if the Arbitrator doesn't answer ? How this can be recorded ? (hint: possible solution can be, to record such progress report requests and their results under the cases History Log) The coming-in for Arbitrators is a nomination and a board motion accepted. The resign is allways only self-resigning. There is no known procedure except arbitration process to remove an in-active CM or A So needs the removal of an in-active arbitrators also a board motion ? Questions over questions, but let this case simple: Proposed procedure for removal of inactive CaseManagers and Arbitrators ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today i've started a ping test in the mailing list: email@example.com and CC'ing all CaseManagers and Arbitrators that are listed under _https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Arbitrators_  for a sign of life and a response within 7 days by a direct email. After the 7 days passed and a CaseManager and/or Arbitrator doesn't answer i'll send a reminder with an addtl. 1 week deadline. If the 2 weeks passes w/o any answer the candidate has to be removed from the team. The 4-eyes principle is included in this procedure in the way, the ping test is also sent to the arbitrators mailing list. All cases that this CaseManager and/or Arbitrator handles, needs to be handed over to another Case Manager and/or Arbitrator. If there is no CM / A available, the running case needs to be modified to state - on hold, until a new CM / A steps in. The former CM and/or A needs to be marked as "former CM", "former A" so that the next CM / A can continue requesting infos from the former CM / A So can you please confirm, that this is an acceptable procedure to remove inactive Case Managers / Arbitrators ? I hereby accept the CCA and DRP under this arbitration. Ulrich Schroeter
Links:  Arbitrations / Arbitrators
2nd statement dated Wed, 2 Dec 2009
Dear Support, Dear Arbitrators, I will bring to your attention about my dispute filing case a20091126.2 "removal of in-active case managers and arbitrators procedure" that there still exists a Policy fo NonResponsiveMaintainers in the Fedora project. _http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers_  May be this helps in building up a procedure for CAcert's unresponsive arbitrators ? As the numbered case has no assigned Case Manager and Arbitrator yet, i'll send it to support, that this addtl. info can be recorded also for this case.
Links:  NonResponsiveMaintainers
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: UlrichSchroeter (C), Case: a20091126.2
2009-11-27 (UlrichSchroeter): added to wiki, request for CM / A
2009-12-06 (UlrichSchroeter): added 2nd statement to wiki
- 2009-12-11 (A): taking this case
- 2009-12-11 (A): sent first suggestion to cacert-arbitration, received few to none replies
- 2009-12-15 (A): sent second suggestion for procedure to ulrich asking him to pre-check before I check the big public.
- 2009-12-23 (A): sent reminder to ulrich as I haven't received a reply yet.
- 2010-02-10 (C): sent discussion notes regarding CCA 3.5, 2.3, DRP 2.1, 2.6 to (A)
- 2010-02-22 (C): sent background infos, points for discussion to (A)
2010-02-24 (A): proposal to put a draft procedure onto the agenda of one of the next Arbitration Team Meetings
- 2010-02-24 (C): I'll accept this proposal
2010-04-06 (A): Proposal accepted on arbitration team meeting: Arbitration Meeting 2010-04-06
2010-06-18 (A): Ruling & case closed
Because some arbitration cases have been found to be in a 'stalled' state, a procedure is required to hand over a case to a new arbitrator and/or case manager.
This is an unusual case, in the sense that it's only purpose is to prepare a procedure and have it accepted by the arbitrators at an arbitrator's meeting. Although no formal case manager was appointed, the ruling was accepted by multiple arbitrator's in a meeting.
Arbitrators should add a notice to the init mails that the Claimant and Respondent can ask about a progress report, and if that request remains unanswered for 2 weeks, they can ask the DRO about it.
A template for the init mailing is maintained here: Arbitrations/Training/Lesson08
When anyone thinks a case is stalling:
- First write to the Arbitrator and Case Manager, and ask what is causing the delay.
- If that remains unanswered for at least 2 weeks, you can write to the DRO explaining the case appears to be stalled.
- The DRO tries to verify if the Arbitrator and Case Manager both happen to be on a vacation/business trip/such a thing. If so he replies to wait another few weeks. (The delay is not because of an inactive arbitrator, rather because he is *temporarily* too busy). If the DRO doesn't recall such a notice he tries contacting the Arbitrator and Case Manager again himself asking about the delay. If again there is no response for 2 weeks the DRO will look for a replacement. If only one of the two is unresponsive (Arbitrator or Case Manager), then only the unresponsive one has to be replaced.
- The DRO considers whether or not it is appropriate to propose this unresponsive Arbitrator/Case Manager to the board to revoke his Arbitrator status. (related to m20091206.2)
Template init mailing has been updated at Arbitrations/Training/Lesson08. Arbitrators have been informed through the arbitration mailing list.