• Arbitrations
• a20140625.1

• Case Number: a20140625.1
• Status: dismissed
• Claimant: Benny B
• Respondent: Critical Team

• initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe

• Case Manager: name case manager
• Arbitrator: name arbitrator
• Date of arbitration start: not available
• Date of dismiss: 2016-11-19
• Case closed: 2016-11-19
• Complaint: Dispute against Critical
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: Critical Team (R), Claimant: Benny B (C), Case: a20140625.1

History Log

• 2014-06-25 (issue.c.o): case [s20140625.98]
• 2014-07-06 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2014-07-06 (iCM): notification about case send to C, R
• 2014-07-26 (iCM): repeats request for CM / A
• 2015-02-08 (iCM): asks C if case is still needed
• 2015-02-10 (C): insists in case even if parts were resolved
• 2015-02-10 (iCM): asks C if C tried to address the issue outside of arbitration
• 2015-02-10 (C): explains iCM and R why he expects some report based on SP
• 2015-02-13 (R): sends link to report at systemlog-mailingliste
• 2015-02-15 (C): accepts report as sufficient for all interested parties
• 2016-11-19 (iCM): dismisses case, because it has resolved itself outside of Arbitration

Private Part

• Link to Arbitration case a20140625.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

EOT Private Part

original Dispute

• I'd like to file a dispute against the Critical Team, again, because of
  violation of the usual procedures for installation of (WebDB) software
  changes to the critical infrastructure. This includes:
  
  1. Unauthorized modification of the signer software (Comm Module)
  without prior approval
  2. Unauthorized modification of the web software (WebDB Frontend)
  without prior approval
  
  My case is based on the following entry from the cacert-devel mailing list:
  - https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-devel/2014-06/msg00014.html
  (§4 regarding tests)
  
  Please note my reply on the list, which can be found at:
  - https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-devel/2014-06/msg00015.html

Discovery

• Claimant had stated "the issue itself has been handled by Software in the mean time and

the patches, as far as I can see it in the bugtracker), got their approval, the immediate reason is gone."

• link to report send by Respondent: https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-systemlog/2015-02/msg00010.html

• this report was declared to be sufficient for all interested parties by Claimant.

2016-11-19: Based on this, the iCM concludes that no issue for handling via Arbitration remains and dismisses the case.

Ruling

Execution

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseOthers