* Case Number: a20121114.1 * Status: withdrawn * Claimant: CAcert (Support - originally filed by Werner D) * Respondent: CAcert * Initial Case Manager: AlexRobertson * Case Manager: PietStarreveld * Arbitrator: * Date of arbitration start: * Date of ruling: * Case closed: 2016-10-15 * Complaint: Change in Data Base * Relief: TBD Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: CAcaert (C1), Case: a20121114.1 Former parties: Werner D. for Support (C2). <> == History Log == . 2012-11-17 (issue.c.o) ticket [[Ticket:192937|s20121114.429]] . 2012-11-17 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A . 2016-08-20 (CM): FrOSCon 2016 session: . case selected for review as it fits the review criteria . CAcert Support becomes new claimant (C1), original claimant dismissed (C2) . CAcert Support withdraws case as claimant . 2016-09-25 (CM): board confirms the executive decisions taken during FrOSCon 2016 session by board motion m20160921.2 . 2016-10-03 (CM): implement executive decisions taken during FrOSCon 2016 and send case withdrawal notification . 2016-10-15 (CM): case closed as withdrawn '''Link to Arbitration case [[Arbitrations/priv/a20121114.1|a20121114.1 (Private Part)]], Access for (CM) + (A) only)''' ## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT <> ## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT ==== EOT Private Part ==== == Original Dispute == * Original dispute (privacy sensitive data anonymized as [...]): {{{ Hello Arbitrators, since the following is no standard case for Support and not yet a precedent case, I assume an arbitrators decision is required. In the list of received assurances I found [an account having multiple backslashes in its location field]. The string \\\\\\ in the location field should be removed. Could you please order to do so. It is a pure formal change without changing real contents. Since there is a number of similar cases, [...] suggested to create a new precedent case similar to http://wiki.cacert.org/Support/Handbook/NewPointsCalculation or http://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20111001.1 It should be allowed that Support can revoke an old assurance and order to enter the assurance anew, if the required conditions are met. We regard to do formal changes of entries that are strange or ugly. No essential contents shall be changed, that would still be up to arbitration or other precedent cases. The precedent case http://wiki.cacert.org/Support/Handbook/PrecedentCases/a20100210.2 or other precedent cases shall not be touched. }}} == Discovery == === FrOSCon 2016 session - future of 25 arbitration cases from leaving team members === At FrOSCon 2016 members of Arbitration, Board and Support took part in a session on possible withdrawal of cases by CAcert(Support)/CAcert and prior clarification about claimants. On 2016-08-23 the initial report of that FrOSCon 2016 session, [[https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00009.html|Protocol - FrOSCon session - future of 25 arbitration cases from leaving team members]], was posted on the board and arbitration mailing lists for review and discussion. The executive "decisions" taken during the FrOSCon 2016 Session (and also regarding additional cases) were confirmed by board motion [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20160921.2|m20160921.2]] on 2016-09-25: {{{ Resolved, that board withdraws the cases as mentioned in the emails https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00009.html and https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00017.html acting for CAcert as claimant of that cases. }}} The detailed background, proceedings and the initial report of the FrOSCon 2016 session are publicly available as [[Arbitrations/FrOSCon-2016-Report|FrOSCon 2016 Session Report]]. === FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20121114.1 - "Change in Data Base" === At the FrOSCon 2016 Session case a20121114.1 - "Change in Data Base" was put up for review as all who were present at the session agreed that it fitted the criteria for review: * dispute is filed by formerly active member * dispute is filed as a role based dispute For this case this meant that Support would now assume the role of claimant and that the original claimant should be considered as former claimant, having been dismissed from the dispute. The subsequent review of this case at FrOSCon 2016 made Support decide to withdraw the case as claimant as shown by the relevant section of the FrOSCon 2016 report posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-23: {{{ 7. https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20121114.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Change in Data Base" * summary of dispute: "In the list of received assurances I found the following annoying entry:" [assurance details in method and/or location field an entry with a lot of "\\\\"] - The string \\\\\\ in the location field should be removed. Could you please order to do so. suggested precedents case, because of other similar cases: Support should be allowed to - revoke an old assurance and - order to enter the assurance anew for "formal changes of entries that are strange or ugly" "No essential contents shall be changed, that would still be up to arbitration" * support: withdraw * board: ok }}} === FrOSCon 2016 session - review of case a20121114.1 - "Change in Data Base" - comments received === The review of this case as reported on the board and arbitration mailinglists led to minor [[https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00012.html|comments]] posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-24 (only relevant part included here for brevity): {{{ [...] > suggested precedents case, because of other similar cases: Support > should be allowed to > - revoke an old assurance and > - order to enter the assurance anew Just wondering how to handle missing CAP forms due to adherence of privacy policy ... > for "formal changes of entries that are strange or ugly" Can you please be more vague in your policies? > "No essential contents shall be changed, that would still be up to > arbitration" > > * support: withdraw > * board: ok Looking forward to a sensible implementation of "essential" ;-) [...] }}} These comments however didn't dispute the withdrawal of the case as such and merely addressed issues with the original dispute filing from the former claimant. This was pointed out in a [[https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00014.html|reply]] posted on the board and arbitration mailinglists on 2016-08-25 (only relevant part included here for brevity): {{{ [...] >> suggested precedents case, because of other similar cases: Support >> should be allowed to >> - revoke an old assurance and >> - order to enter the assurance anew > Just wondering how to handle missing CAP forms due to adherence of > privacy policy ... >> for "formal changes of entries that are strange or ugly" > Can you please be more vague in your policies? > >> "No essential contents shall be changed, that would still be up to >> arbitration" >> >> * support: withdraw >> * board: ok > Looking forward to a sensible implementation of "essential" ;-) Well, those questions were possibly the reason why this dispute was withdrawn... (The quotes were from the dispute.) [...] }}} == Ruling == None - claimant C1 withdrew case on 2016-08-20. ---- . CategoryArbitration . CategoryArbCaseSystemTasks . CategoryArbCaseOthers