- Case Number: a20130421.1
- Status: init
Claimants: UlrichSchroeter
- Respondents: CAcert
Initial Case Manager: AlexRobertson, at 2016-12-08 EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision m20161119.4 and m20161119.3
- Case Manager: name case manager
- Arbitrator: name arbitrator
- Date of arbitration start: 201Y-MM-DD
- Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
- Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
- Complaint: Status of Access Engineer team in question
- Relief: Plz review current state of Access Engineer team if it fulfills SP requirements.
Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: UlrichSchroeter (C), Case: a20130421.1
History Log
2013-04-29 (issue.c.o) case s20130427.129
- 2013-04-29 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2013-04-30 (iCM): further email from (C)
Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional)
Link to Arbitration case a20130421.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)
EOT Private Part
Original Dispute
> > Dear CAcert,
> >
> > current state of Access Engineer team is quite diverse.
> > On the wiki page
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/SystemAdministration/Team
> > I've edited the documentation of Access Engineer team members while
> > trying to find the related Arbitration case numbers and Board motion
> > numbers of the Access Engineer team members nomination procedure.
> > AE's that are to be bound by SP
> > https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/SecurityPolicy.html
> > Effected SP paragraphs:
> > SP 1.1.1 covered personal
> > SP 2.3.1. Access Authorisation
> > SP 2.3.5. Physical Security codes & devices SP 3.4.2. Special
> > Authorisation SP 3.4.4. Removing access SP 9.1.1. Roles and
> > responsibilities
> > * Access Engineer: responsible for controlling access to hardware,
> > and maintaining hardware.
> > SP 9.1.2. Staffing levels
> > SP 9.1.3. Process of new Team Members SP 9.1.4. Arbitrated
> > Background Check - Procedures SP 9.1.4.2. Coverage SP 9.1.4.3.
> > Documentation SP 9.1.4.4. Privacy for Critical Roles SP 9.1.5.
> > Authorisation
> >
> >
> > SP 3.4.2. Special Authorisation
> > Additional or special access is granted according to the
> > authorisations on the below access control lists (see §1.1.1):
> > List Name Physical Control List
> > Who Access Engineers
> > Purpose of access control of access by personnel to hardware
> > Relationship exclusive of all other roles
> > Manager Access team leader
> >
> > All changes of personnel to the above lists are subject to Board
> > approval.
> >
> > From the Access Engineers team members list under
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/SystemAdministration/Team
> > I only could find a board motion and an Arbitration case regarding
> > Arbitrated Background Check for Stefan Kooman
> >
> > SP 9.1.3. Process of new Team Members
> > New team members need:
> > o Recommendation by team leader
> > o Arbitrated Background Check ("ABC")
> > o Authorisation by Board
> >
> > For the critical sysadmins, there exist at least a board motion
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/EmailBoardDecisionsUpdateFeb2008#m20080608.1
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/EmailBoardDecisions2008-09#m20090202.2
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/EmailBoardDecisionsUpdateFeb2008#m20081006.1
> > but for the Access Engineer team the documentation lacks the ABC
> > process and a board motion (!)
> >
> > From my current PoV, we currently have only one Access Engineer team
> > member. This clashes SP 9.1.2. Staffing levels "Each team should
> > have a minimum of two members available at any time."
> >
> > Ok, "should" ... but keep in mind, that before Stefan Kooman has
> > been nominated by m20110717.4, probably no Access Engineer was
> > nominated before ?!?
> > that makes all activities that happened before questionable under SP
> >
> > There is a link with Oophaga regarding Access Engineer personal in
> > the MoU
> >
> https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/hosting/CAcert-Oophaga-MoU-Si
> gned-20090810.pdf
> > (Contact and Access Control)
> > but this doesn't release the requirement for a successful conducted
> > ABC for team members falling under SP (if SP doesn't clashes the MoU
> > contract).
> >
> > So the relief is:
> > Plz review current state of Access Engineer team if it fulfills SP
> > requirements.
Discovery
Ruling
Execution
Similiar Cases
