- Case Number: a20131128.1
- Status: dismissed
- Claimants: CAcert (represented by board) - formerly CAcert(Support) formerly: Marcus M for CAcert (Support)
- Respondents: CAcert
Initial Case Manager: MartinGummi
Case Manager: PietStarreveld
former Case Manager: EvaStöwe
former Arbitrator: MartinGummi
- Date of arbitration start: 2013-12-09
- Date of final ruling / dismiss: 2016-11-25
- Case closed: 2016-11-27
- Complaint: SQL Query - Request for analysing
- arbitration and software should check how many accounts have issued two or more valid assurance from one assurer to the same assuree.
- In a second step the outcome should be analysed and see if there is a need for a clean up and how this clean up should take place.
- Software should provide the needed SQL statements.
- possible update to 2.: TBD
Before: Arbitrator EvaStöwe (A) - former Arbitrator MartinGummi, Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: CAcert (Support) - formerly: Marcus M (C), Case: a20131128.1
- Note: until 2016-08-21 this case was handled with the following role entries:
- Claimants: Marcus M
- Respondents: CAcert
Case Manager: EvaStöwe
- At 2016-08-21 the Arbitrator was exchanged because of inactivity and wish to resign.
- Because the former Case Manager was much more experienced in that case, the new arbitration roles were assigned with former CM in role of Arbitrator and a new Case Manger.
- As first action the new Arbitrator reviewed the parties (as DRP requests), as Marcus M had left the support team. Because of this it had to be re-evaluated who the claimant is, based on the question if the case was a personal case or a role-based case. The according evaluation was done together with representatives of support and board (who is also acting DRO, as that post is vacant). (Marcus M had not answered to comparable questions in other cases.)
- The result of this review was that the case was a role based case from direction of support as the dispute started with mentioning activity in the support role
- As a second step support was asked about clarification of the part of the relief regarding the possible clean-up was too unspecific. To request and formulate the relief is the job of the Claimant and not of Arbitration
- This question was then placed on board agenda by the present board-members.
- Board then took over the handling of the case on claimant side, by this the CAcert (represented by board) became Claimant.
- 2013-11-29 (issue.c.o) case [s20131128.51]
- 2013-11-29 (ICM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
- 2013-12-09 (CM): I'll take care of this cas as CM and select Martin Gummi as A
- 2013-12-09 (CM): init mail to C
- 2013-12-10 (A, CM): asked C for confirmation if C wants to continue with case even as it was stated that double assurances were allowed by super assurers, C confirms (IRC)
- 2013-12-10 (Software): created, tested and authorized sql-query sql1
- 2014-03-30 (CM): asks A what is preventing any further actions in this case
- 2014-06-15 (A): add Discovery, Intermediate Ruling I
- 2014-06-16 (Critical): executed, send result encrypted to A and CM as requested
- 2016-08-21 (former CM): switches arbitrators because of inactivity and resignation of former A, afterwards roles of CM and A (see note above)
Now: A: Eva Stöwe, CM: PietStarreveld
- 2016-08-21 (A, CM, support, board member): face to face session about who is claimant and nature of case and possible future of case and request to update outstanding reliefe some more
- 2016-08-21 (board member): placed question about relief for this case on board-agenda
Now: claim is understood to be filed for support and not as a personal case and will be continued like this, claimant clarified to be: CAcert (Support), relief to be clarified
- 2016-08-30 (A): send former communication to new CM
2016-08-31 (A): mail to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org mailing lists - pending the public discussion of this case in the board-meeting, informs board and the claimant about the background and status of the case, the two parts of the request concerned, her evaluation of the case and the questions for board and claimant that remain to be answered
- 2016-09-02 (CM): asks former A to confirm all emails relevant to this case have been shared with A and CM
- 2016-09-18 (board): discusses what they want to do in this case (as claimant)
Now: board (as head of executive area) took over role of claimant from support
- 2016-09-19 (A): informs CM that board has discussed the case and is still exploring various ways to deal with it, provides transcript
- 2016-09-25 (A): asks board for clarification about how to interpret their discussion from last board meeting regarding the relief of the case
- 2016-10-01 (board): discusses case again (in perspective of claimant)
- 2016-10-13 (A): informs CM that board has now tasked a board member to make a proposal on how to deal with the case and intends to discuss that proposal during the next board meeting
- 2016-10-22 (A): urges board as claimant to provide some clarification regarding the dispute/relief of this case
- 2016-11-01 (CM): request Support to provide primary email address of former Arbitrator of a20130530.1 and a20131128.1
- 2016-11-12 (CM): receive reply from Support on request for primary email address of former Arbitrator
2016-11-19 (board): discusses case again; decides to request withdraw from case with motion m20161119.6
- 2016-11-25 (A): send ruling to board and support
- 2016-11-25 (CM): thank Support for providing the requested information
- 2016-11-25 (CM): send second request to former A to confirm all emails relevant to this case have been shared with A and CM
- 2016-11-25 (CM): receive NDR on second request to former A due to recipient exceeding storage allocation
Link to Arbitration case a20131128.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only
EOT Private Part
while working on a support case for Arbitration a20120409.1 I stumbled over the fact that it was possible to add two (2) assurances to one account back in 2006. To my knowledge this should never happen. My request is that arbitration and software should check how many accounts have issued two or more valid assurance from one assurer to the same assuree. In a second step the outcome should be analysed and see if there is a need for a clean up and how this clean up should take place. Software should provide the needed SQL statements.
- The AP 4.3 says that for reaching 50 Assurance Points a member must have participated in at least two assurances. A Support Engeneer stumble over it was possible to add two (2) assurances. So a database SQL query is needed to clean up this.
- A long standing member and arbitrator who is not involved in the case confirms that to assure someone multiple times was possible at least before the AP at least for members with more then 200 points.
- This SQL query only gives the number assurances from one assurer other the same assure done in "Face to Face Meeting" and only shows if this count is greater one. The result of the SQL query return only numbers not directed related to personal identifiable information of any member. So there cannot be any privacy issue. Since it is only statistical information maybe known by anybody as we aim for transparency.
- In the production environment in 2014 the query returned the results below.
Summary ~~~~~~~ The query returned 200 rows, most of which were double assurances: 188 times out of 200. The maximum number of multiple assurances found was 15. This occurred in only 1 account. Compressed query results ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ +----------+----------+ | count(*) | occurred | +----------+----------+ | 2 | 188 | | 3 | 5 | | 4 | 1 | | 5 | 2 | | 7 | 2 | | 12 | 1 | | 15 | 1 | +----------+----------+ | nr rows | 200 | +----------+----------+
Intermediate Ruling I
Critical team should execute the following sql-query.
1 select count(*) from `notary` where `deleted` = 0 and `method` = 'Face to Face Meeting' group by `to`, `from` having count(*) > 1;
The withdraw of the claimant based on too few resources is accepted. Remaining parts of the case are dismissed.
As those parts are not handled finally, it is possible to file a dispute for them again. The Arbitrator sees some room for a case about those topics, if not handled by a policy or the like. However such a dispute should include a clear proposal about how the clean-up should look like and either should include necessary queries or provide some other indication that they would be available.
The Arbitrator leaves a warning and following advise for the claimant because of requesting continuation of the case multiple times, without being able to provide requested input. As claimant was already informed that such a behaviour may lead to remedies against the claimant as explained in ruling of a20140518.1 . No action is taken in this case, because:
a) While not successful, the claimant (board) showed intention and will to provide a valid and sensible relief. This is especially the case as board picked up the case on claimant side, after they became aware of the case, the issue and the need to add further details.
b) By requesting withdraw claimant also aimed to resolve the situation after realising that board is currently not able to provide such a relief.
c) Also the former Arbitrator already accepted the case and allowed it to continue like this, after first relief was handled and by this allowed the current situation.
The following advise is given:
1. It would be sensible to prepared such disputes within assurance area, probably under guidance of the Assurance Officer, where such topics fit much better than with support.
2. Board is advised to name an Assurance Officer, so that an according dispute or other solution for such issues could be prepared with due focus, probably with the help of others volunteers.
3. Community is advised to help board to find candidates for such a role or other volunteers for looking into such topics.
Eva Stöwe - 2016-11-25
- 2014-06-15 (A): add Discovery, Intermediate Ruling I
- 2014-06-16 (critical): executed Intermediate Ruling I, send result encrypted to A and CM as requested
- 2016-11-25 (A): ruling