Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: BernhardFröhlich (R1) MartinGummi (R2), Claimant: EvaStöwe (C), Case: a20150216.1

History Log

Private Part

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

withdraw of dispute:

as the software team seams to have stopped to block the actions, it hopefully does not matter any more if the authorisation of the PolO to do the same as was explicitly stated to be allowed for the Auditor - while this was not questioned openly, but the actions of the PolO (to ask Crit to do something) were, more than once - I withdraw the appeal.

However I just hope that will not backfire when Crit has to be addressed to execute the script to send the mails. It does not look like this would be done by someone from the software team so it has to be done by me. - That the PolO was allowed to do so was the reason for the incident and that the PolO had tried to do so was not covered by the incident. This was not clearly answered by the Arbitrator, as the part of "Emergency Actions" after "Process of installing the patches" allow to limit the clear answer that was given in "Process of installing the patches".

But as long as people do not hinder the execution of the mail further, I can live with this not being clarified.





Similiar Cases


Wrong version of CCA on website

Arbitrations/a20150216.1 (last edited 2016-11-19 21:39:25 by EvaStöwe)