- Case Number: a20150420.1
- Status: closed
- Claimant: Juergen Bruckner, Marcus Maengel, Reinhard Mutz, Benny Baumann
Case Manager: AlexRobertson
- Arbitrator: Philipp Dunkel
- Date of arbitration start: 2015-04-23 / 2015-06-10
- Date of ruling: 2015-06-27
- Case closed: 2015-06-27
- Complaint: Dispute against: Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority
- Relief: See Ruling
Arbitrator PhilippDunkel (A),
Respondent: EvaStöwe (R) Claimant:
- Juergen Bruckner (C1)
- Marcus Maengel (C2)
- Reinhard Mutz (C3)
- Benny Baumann (C4)
- Private Part
- 2015-04-20 (issue.c.o): case [s20150420.98]
- 2015-04-22 (A): added to wiki
- 2015-04-23 (A): preliminary order (ruling) #1, sent to (Wiki-admin), (CM)
- 2015-04-23 (A): new arbitration case a20150420.1, preliminary order info sent to (C), (R)
- 2015-04-23 (A): request to (C) to clarify yet undocumented ruling "block a SE"
- 2015-04-23 (Wiki-Admin): reports: ACL for (R) set as ordered
- 2015-04-23 (C): rewritten dispute filing (20150423)
- 2015-04-23 (R): comment #1 to (A), (CM)
- 2015-04-23 (R): comment #2 to (A), (C), (CM)
- 2015-04-23 (A): to (R), call to order to wait for any comment until requested, especialy to omit any advise how to proceed this case (this case still has not been started with the init mailing)
- 2015-04-23 (Dirk A): comment to (Support), (A), (CM), (Board-private), (C)
- 2015-04-23 (R): comment #3 to (A), (CM)
- 2015-04-23 (C): clarification regarding (C) as member, not board, dispute filing still WIP
- 2015-06-09 (C1), (C2), (C3), (C4): final dispute filing delivered to (A) (with 8 PDF attaches)
- 2015-06-09 (A): final dispute filing forwarded to (CM)
- 2015-06-10 (A): Init mailing to (C1), (C2), (C3), (C4), (R) with acceptance request for CCA/DRP
- 2015-06-10 (R): "I do accept CCA and DRP but I do not accept Uli as the Arbitrator of this case" (with a couple of conditions)
- 2015-06-10 (C1): accepts CCA/DRP
- 2015-06-10 (C3): accepts CCA/DRP
- 2015-06-10 (C4): accepts CCA/DRP
- 2015-06-10 (C2): accepts CCA/DRP
- 2015-06-10 (A): Philipp Dunkel steps in as arbitrator
- 2015-06-10 (A): Clarification of complaint
- 2015-06-15 (W): Inquiry by CAcert Inc. (secretary) as to origin of documents
- 2015-06-15 (A): Response to Inquiry as to origin of documents
Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)
Link to Arbitration case a20150420.1 (Private Part)
EOT Private Part
After speaking with C1 and UlrichSchröter the basic complaint against Respondent is: It is alleged that the Respondent has continuously abused and exceeded the powers granted to her by CAcert in a way detrimental to both CAcert generally as well as CAcert Arbitration particularly. This case is filed with the intent to determine if the actions taken do in fact represent abuses and excessions, and if so found determine remedies to prevent the Respondent from doing so in future.
preliminary order (ruling) #1
The nature of the dispute file relates to a member of the arbitration team in role as arbitrator. The arbitration file documentation private part is visible to (R) in this case by default (acl permissions set to arbitration team). The dispute filing hypothesizes that private communications between (A) of this case and one of the other arbitration case participients then (R) becomes true. To not discriminate one party to not read the full communication in this case I hereby rule that (R) should be set to denied access to the private part of this case file (priv/a20150420.1). The public part of this arbitration case file is still visible to all parties.
Frankfurt am Main, 2015-04-23 UlrichSchroeter
Ulrich Schröter found that even the suggestion of not being impartial is one that he cannot accept. He has therefore asked PhilippDunkel to take over this arbitration.
- 2015-04-23 2:00 UTC
referenced Arbitration case a20141024.1 terminate assurer account Bruno current state:
Arbitrations/a20141024.1 (zuletzt geändert am 14.04.2015 19:50:48 durch EvaStöwe) Info: #14 14.04.2015 19:50:48 16214
Dear Mr. Ruedin, as the arbitrator in the named case I find it highly questionable how you and the president have attained knowledge of the supposed use of supposedly confidential information by the claimant since any documents provided have not been attached to the case-file. Never the less I am glad to answer your inquiry. The claimants have not used any documentation at all. The claimants have simply asserted the possibility that the respondent has acted in a way that abuses and exceeds her authority as part of their filing. In accordance with DRP-2.6.1 the arbitrator is charged with establishing the facts. The DRP in this point makes it clear that the arbitrator can in fact order the submission of any documents useful in establishing these facts from any community member including CAcert Inc. In common law this is generally referred to as a subpoena. The word subpoena derives from the Latin "under penalty" since it is punishable to refuse to furnish documents when so requested. As such the any community member so tasked has no other choice but to furnish the all documents as requested by the arbitrator. Arbitration does not care in which role an individual has access to documents, nor should it. The fact that these persons were capable of providing them to establish the facts is sufficient. It is therefore entirely irrelevant whose documents were gathered and who provided them. The fact is that the arbitrator has in accordance with the DRP-2.6.1 requested documents to be furnished by several people including the claimants, the respondent, the previous arbitrator, and others. None of these people had a choice in whether they would submit relevant documents and none of them had a choice to decline because of the role in which they had access to these documents. Your suggestion that these documents reached the public via "dark" means is bordering quite closely to an insult to arbitration. As arbitrator I would also like to point out that your examples are wide of the mark as well. In your examples, it was and data reaching the police and state-attorney not the courts. Arbitration is CAcert's system of justice and as such it's courts. Your examples would have been appropriate if CAcert Inc. would have appointed a person as solicitor-general and documents had been made available to that person triggering a claim. None of this is the case. This case contains a large portion of politics/bullying/name-calling by all sides. Both the secretary and the president, as well as the directly involved parties would be well advised to hold their respective own councils and refrain from pouring oil on the fire. While I have no wish that this statement be interpreted as an order to silence or anything of the like, I would strongly suggest that all parties and all observers consider whether any statement they make will add anything of any value to the topic at hand. Best regards, Philipp Dunkel, Arbitrator On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:37:11 +0200, "Etienne Ruedin" wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > CAcert Inc. | P.O. Box 4107 | Denistone East 2112 | New South Wales > Der Sekret�r des Vorstandes > > Fall a20150420.1 > > Sehr geehrter Arbitrator > > Mit grosser Sorge haben der Pr�sident und der Sekret�r von CAcert Inc. > feststellen m�ssen, dass im genannten Fall seitens eines Kl�gers Unterlagen > verwendet werden, die sich gar nicht in dessen Besitz befinden d�rften. Es > handelt sich um einen Kl�ger, der - nach Einwand des Pr�sidenten und > dokumentiert am 23. April 2015 unter obengenanntem Aktenzeichen - als > Privatperson klagt und als Beweismittel dem Vernehmen nach interne > Unterlagen des Vorstandes verwendet, zu welchen er nicht als Privatperson, > sondern ausschliesslich als Vorstandsmitglied Zugang hat. > > Der Pr�sident l�sst Sie hiermit durch mich anfragen, ob Arbitration > Unterlagen, welche auf solchen dunklen Wegen an die �ffentlichkeit gefunden > haben, in Betracht gezogen werden (wie etwa gestohlene Bankdaten in > Niedersachsen) oder ob diese bei der Beurteilung aussen vorgelassen werden > (wie etwa polizeilich arretierte Computerdaten mit ungen�gend formuliertem > Durchsuchungsbefehl in der Schweiz). > > Ich w�re Ihnen f�r eine diesbez�gliche Antwort in den n�chsten Tagen > dankbar. > > Freundliche Gr�sse > > CAcert Inc. > Etienne Ruedin > Vorstandssekret�r. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Mailvelope v0.13.1 > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJVfsZGCRAIx+WH31qJKQAA1RIP/ixUTUxdIVP1T6G5PwUd > K4sWM4tgWbgPoicLVSvJzI0J8/uRdsCVzlTDjZ02d3O/7KDBmFFa6NLAI7pw > 55TFDx4cUHSO5r4exAjDbtgdOOMmB6vsYKggIj/2bU5iwWmHxyZoMoPUbnQN > AKUWSCPB6UbPmpDkdG31lGaB7ZFQDPB8fLg9pjpHpfRWdL3oPzFDj7X6YSFp > ncAlBmWMbJBUxvcG1DLoPoqDOURoXQNRqh3phDChtN+Idci5mFuFB6P1DYxY > V0MOBf9/7iFpTeieDnbVHSo3xegTT4kHIHwz++/ojx4pzqw8Kf9+3yMxyS9L > HOFpXFRzAykkFXssFyk6qen+GGmSOrNr4apvnlzi9eGTYzK1YpxYiictyDaP > SNAgL2FY9+ZHQQyy7ArVZ+WDkhtssAo6XHVzWsTXgn6S9KSqu0DMlWcjQeCP > pQUJsJqkl+0lUskWefMwLEKCcHgn2HajhKAoWa+bOp72kVYWq82n+xPE6Qea > nb7ie7XMSLL0E+DvA1L79Y0I09pSDj2LeudChbL2+zKGa7se6xtsBjR72jYn > rDztSHpIC9jJYeAkIisZycb+Z4oEFylOyDrF79ryvLxO+MVjIf9hoFZ/4S73 > BaVUekbI3EcCjcqUiqbcJ15kvvjZhOfCcSxnP6Q+5p3MQf7p/5mxQTgS0utT > LWFa > =ILvx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This case presented a conundrum as its content was initially unclear. The case makes the claim that Eva Stöwe has acted contrary to policy and the interests of the CAcert Community in either her capacity as arbitrator or in her capacity as policy officer or in her capacity as community member. She has allegedly done so by exceeding her authority as well as using her distinct roles and their authority in inappropriate contexts.
The explicit request was made that she be curbed in. This could mean removing her as an arbitrator, removing her as policy officer, both or neither. As this case has to ask how can officers be removed as well as how can arbitrators be removed.
Eva also holds positions in each part of CAcert governance. She is policy officer and therefore an office holder in the executive branch. She is also an arbitrator and as such a member of the judicial branch. CAcert's legislative consists of the policy group, which is an open forum admitting anyone. She has been actively engaged in this group as well and is therefore also part of the legislative. This raises the question of how these branches relate to each other as well as whether there are conflicts of interest that arise therefrom.
Of course this case has also to be concerned with Eva's actual actions. Were her actions against policy or otherwise objectionable in a way suitable to cause this arbitration to consider actions against her. Noting that arbitration could also be abused to harass or embarrass an individual it is also prudent to examine whether this has been the case and potentially sanction the claimants for such behaviour.
2. The relationship of the branches of CAcert governance
CAcert has three branches of governance: the executive in the form of CAcert Inc., the legislative in the form of the policy group and the judicial in the form of arbitration. These branches haven been designed to be entirely independent of each other. Interference of one in the business of the other is against the very basic intention of creating these structures in policy. However there is a system of checks and balances in place to give each a measure of influence over the other two.
- Legislative / Policy Group influence – The policy group is charged with creating policies. As such it can control the actions of the other branches by creating policies that they have to adhere to.
- Executive / CAcert Inc. influence – To influence policy group CAcert Inc. has a veto on policies where they concern the running of the community. To influence arbitration CAcert Inc. is empowered to appoint arbitrators.
- Judicial / Arbitration influence – Arbitration can interpret policies and can through interpretation adjust and fine-tune policies. It also has the judicial power to pass rulings, injunctions and subpoenas which in turn CAcert Inc. is obliged to follow.
2a) Removal of CAcert Inc. officers
The removal of CAcert officers is an exclusive privilege of the CAcert Inc. board. That board in turn is responsible to the community by dint of being elected by CAcert Inc. members that are a subset of CAcert community members.
Arbitration may be able to rule that an action by an officer is contrary to policy and countermand or amend it, but arbitration does not have the the power to remove an officer.
> Ruling: CAcert Inc. officers can only be removed by the board of CAcert Inc.
2b) Removal of an arbitrator
The independence of arbitrators / judges has a long history in common law. In the "Act of Settlement" parliament determined that the crown's justices held their posts for life "on good behaviour": it would take a vote of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the concurrence of the Crown itself to impeach a justice.
In the case of CAcert the crown is CAcert Inc. since its role is executive in nature. The house of commons is most closely replicated by the policy group. And the house of lord is most closely like arbitration since it is the only body aside from individual justices that holds some judicial powers.
This aligns very well with the intent behind creating the different branches of CAcert governance and is based on ample precedent.
In this light the board motion claiming the right to remove arbitrators can only be interpreted to mean that rather than any CAcert officer such as the president alone having the power to initiate impeachment actions against a sitting arbitrator, the board reserved this prerogative to the entirety of its members.
> Ruling: An arbitrator can only be removed if all three branches of CAcert governance agree that the bar of acting contrary to "good behaviour" has been met, which means that a wilful act contrary to policy is required.
3. Positions in multiple branches of governance
Through the examination of this case it has become clear that while there might not have been an actual conflict of interest for Eva, the perception has been that her duties as arbitrator and policy officer interfere with each other.
Whether this was in fact the case becomes less important in light of the fact that there is no other supervision than an arbitration to check, supervise and affirm that this was not the case. That is the route the claimants have rightly chosen.
Underlying this issue is whether there can be such a thing as a "conflict of interests in principle", meaning an inherent conflict between agencies. As a matter of fact, such has been described above in the description of the relationship between the branches of CAcert governance.
The three branches of CAcert governance are by design in constant conflict in order to provide a measure of control over each other.
> Ruling: A single individual may not hold active roles or offices in more than one branch of CAcert governance at the same time. > This means that should an arbitrator accept appointment to a CAcert Inc. role, his/her status as an arbitrator is put on sabbatical and he/she may not adjudicate cases or otherwise act as arbitrator for the duration of his/her tenure. > In consequence Eva Stöwe is asked to either be on sabbatical as an arbitrator or resign as policy officer. > Participation in policy group does not cause the same conflict of interest in principle, since it is a democratic egalitarian forum without any special roles. It even allows participation by non CAcert community members and works by rough consensus so that there can be no undue influence by an individual. > This does also not prohibit an arbitrator from taking part in the activities and of CAcert Inc. it solely prohibits taking on actual responsibility within the executive branch.
As a note this arbitrator wishes to express his sincere wish that Eva remain an active member of arbitration, since she has shown an aptitude as an arbitrator. I truly believe Eva can be on invaluable service to CAcert in the role of an arbitrator.
4. Actual acts against policy
Much evidence has been viewed in regards to the specific allegations made by the claimants as well as additional material sought out by arbitration itself. While there is ample evidence for conflict, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Eva has ever acted against policy.
To the contrary, there are several incidents where she suggests and pushes for an adherence to policy. In fact one of the claims made against her was that she had "threatened with arbitration".
In fact she acted precisely correct. She was threatening to file a complaint, knowing that an arbitrator cannot become active otherwise. To consider this a threat, shows an uncommon lack of understanding of how arbitration works and fits into CAcert governance on behalf of her opponents.
> Ruling: This arbitrator holds that none of the reviewed material has given any indication of an abuse of power or authority nor any violations of policy by the respondent Eva Stöwe. In fact her work as an arbitrator has been exemplary. She has not acted in any evident way contrary to the best interests of CAcert in either her role as arbitrator or policy officer.
5. Abuse by the claimants
While there well may be cases that qualify as harassment, this case is not amongst them. This case can be considered a legitimate attempt to ascertain whether an arbitrator or a CAcert officer have abused or exceeded their authority.
Such cases have an important function in the CAcert governance scheme and should not be discouraged. As such the bar for adjudging abuse needs to be seet exceedingly high.
> Ruling: The claimants acted entirely proper in bringing this case as a tool for investigating and adjudging a possible abuse/excess of powers.
Due to inquiries by the respondent as well as the case-manager I wish to add these comments in hopes to clarify.
Officer positions are appointed by the board of CAcert Inc. in a delegation of some of its powers. As such all officers are bound by board instructions. The PolO, as in this case, is thereby the representative of the board to policy group charged with administrative tasks such as running the list and publishing policy decisions, but is firmly part of the executive, since he/she is both appointed as well as removed by board motion. The same holds true for the DRO. The DRO may, but does not have to be an arbitrator, however if he is an arbitrator he has to go on sabbatical for the duration of being DRO. The DRO is the equivalent to the minister of justice, and therefore clearly part of the executive. The precedent for these issues is to be found in our own CAcert history. There was a decision that being a board member and an arbitrator at the same time was not possible. The same goes for being an agent of the CAcert board that is bound by its motions. There are of course even more precedent cases in other realms of common-law: There is for example [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law#The_rule_against_bias|The rule against bias]]. Which would preclude an officer to deal with any case where CAcert Inc. is a named participant (including account closures). And then (just as an example) there is the [[http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges|Code of Conduct for US Judges]] which makes a very similar argument: > A judge may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, ... A judge should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the judge’s governmental duties would tend to undermine the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A role as an officer of CAcert Inc. being bound to obey all motions of the CAcert Inc. board, definitely undermines "the public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of" arbitration.
As the case is closed and there is nothing "private" in the private part of this case-file, the private part is ordered open to the public. To facilitate this, I have appended the entire private part to the end of this case-file. (Philipp Dunkel, Arbitrator)
DRP handbook (Arbitration training)
#acl EvaStöwe: #acl UlrichSchroeter,arobertson:read,write,delete,revert,admin #acl AndreasBäß,AlexanderPrinsier,BernhardFröhlich,LambertHofstra,Mario Lipinski,MartinGummi,NickBebout,SebastianKueppers,PhilippDunkel:read,write
Private Part of ...
- Case Number: a20150420.1
- Complaint: Dispute against: Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority
Original Dispute (Private)
Ticket Number: s20150420.98
current state: WIP
From: Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org To: email@example.com Signed: Signature verified before! Subject: Subject: Dispute against Arbitration case 20141024.1 - Block of SE Attachment: smime.p7s , 4.1 KBytes Referring to the ruling in arbitration case 20141024.1, concerning the suspension of support engineers, I request hereby that this decision is reviewed regarding the accuracy and legality, primarily to determine whether the arbitrator has hereby not exceeded its powers (missuse of powers). Furthermore, I would ask to suspend this ruling 20141024.1 at least until the inspection is completed. -- Juergen Bruckner Vice-President of CAcert Inc. CAcert Assurer, CAcert OrganisationAssurer CAcert.org - The Community CA E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org CellPhone: +43.660.5147221 VoIP: +43.720.984221 Web: http://www.cacert.org
Dispute filing modified
-----Original Message----- From: Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:46 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: CAcert Arbitration case a20150420.1 - Dispute against .. Block of SE Dear Uli, --english version below-- Um meinen eingereichten Dispute zu konkretisieren und Unklarheiten auszuräumen, möchte ich diesen wie folgt abändern: Bezugnehmend auf die im Rahmen des Arbitration Case 20141024.1 ergangene Order zur "Suspendierung" eines Support Engineers, ersuche ich hiermit, dass diese Entscheidung (die Suspendierung eines SE) auf Richtigkeit, und Rechtmässigkeit, sowie massvolle Umsetzung einer Massnahme geprüft wird. Ich bin der Meinung dass der Arbitrator des genannten Cases seine Befugnisse mit der Suspendierung überschritten haben könnte, aber zumindest über das Ziel hinausgeschossen ist. Explizit anmerken möchte ich hiermit, dass dieser Dispute sich nicht gegen den Case 20141024.1 selbst und das vom Arbitrator erlassene Ruling als 'precedence case', sowie auch nicht gegen das angeordnete 'retraining' des betreffenden SE richtet. Einzig die angeordnete Suspendierung des SE ist Gegenstand meines Disputes. To substantiate my submitted dispute and resolve ambiguities, I would like to change it as follows: Referring to the issued order under the Arbitration Case 20141024.1 for "suspension" of a support engineer, I request hereby that this decision (the suspension of an SE) is reviewed for accuracy and legality, and modest implementation of this action is examined. I am of the opinion that the arbitrator of the said case may have exceeded his authority with the suspension, but at least overshooting the mark. I would like declare explicitly that this dispute is not directed against the Case 20141024.1 itself and the ruling as 'precedence case', and also not against the ordered 'retraining' on the respective SE. Only the ordered suspension of the SE is topic of this dispute. best regards Juergen Bruckner CARS -- Juergen Bruckner CAcert Assurer, CAcert OrganisationAssurer CAcert.org - The Community CA E-Mail: email@example.com CellPhone: +43.660.5147221 VoIP: +43.720.984221 Web: http://www.cacert.org
Final Dispute filing modified
-----Original Message----- From: Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:27 AM To: Ulrich Schröter CAcert; "inopiae"@cacert.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: Final Dispute Filing a20150420.1 - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority To sharpen my dispute and to clear some ambiguities I like to change it to the following: Referring to the issued order under the Arbitration Case 20141024.1 for "suspension" of a support engineer, I request hereby that this decision (the suspension of an SE) is reviewed for accuracy and legality, and modest implementation of this action. I am of the opinion that the arbitrator of the said case may have exceeded his authority with the suspension, but at least overshooting the mark. Furthermore there are several incidents in the last months from the said arbitrator that causes to scare active members away or the potential candidates withdraw their offer to help. Please see the mails on the public board mailing list of April 10th (attached as pdf file). The Eva Stöwe tried to put a regress fine of EUR 1,000.00 for each Software assessor for any errors in the code. Through this Bernhard Fröhlich announced his step back as software assessor. This step back was the starting point of the named mail discussion. On April 15th, 2015, Eva Stöwe requested to board, to instruct the support engineers to work as case-manager (as defined in some policies). This was done contrary to better knowledge, as the support team is completely understaffed, and that causing the above ruling one of the support-engineers cannot intervene. So here is the attempt as well to bring out a personal decision, which would "burn out" the support-staff by the additional burden. The corresponding e-mail is also attached as a PDF-file. Eva Stöwe tried to influence a necessary immediate support action that she started a public discussion to legalise an assurance via skype as she stated against better knowledge and in contradiction to our policies and rule that video assurances are something different than skype supported assurances. She wanted to accept a skype assurance as valid face-to-face meeting. This discussion was started on May 15th. Last she tried on May 26th in a mail to board that she wants to take action from arbitration if board does not "act to sanctify a software developer" with whom she has an ongoing conflicts (e.g. asking for sabbatical from software telco). Additional the following incidents should be taken in account as well: Stated by Reinhard Mutz: - Regarding the arb case a20140518.1 Eva tries to follow the Community rules in contradiction to the dispute that needs to rule on the basis of the CAcert Inc rules. - In the arb case a20140518.1 Eva sent a mail to Dominik that was declared as private and intended to reach Reinhard. After the wrong recipients were discovered Eva ordered Reinhard and Dominik not to talk about this matter outside the related parties. She declared her erroneous behaviour as a "right" of arbitrator Stated by Marcus Mängel - "Dispute about who decides how support organizes its work internally (OTRS ticket tagging)" (dispute ticket [s20141022.25] still not transferred) This dispute case was initiated as Eva tried to say how support should tag the tickets. - Sometimes after the "Dispute to fix bug 807" with s20141106.35 was sent to dispute queue (which is still not public) Eva told Marcus in one of the telco between November 14 and January 15 that only software assessors are allowed to send in disputes regarding software matters. The led the dispute "Dispute for sending out a mail from the WebDB regarding bug 649" case s20150125.148 (which is still not public) which referred to the matter that Marcus is not allowed to hand in disputed cases for software matters. - While support was asked to help finding the ticket [s20150125.148] "Dispute for sending out a mail from the WebDB regarding bug 649" it was discovered that Eva as initial Case manager closed this dispute in the OTRS without transferring it to the wiki. This is a violation of our transparency rules. Furthermore with closing this dispute without transferring it to the wiki the dispute would presumably never be touched again. Furthermore Benny Baumann as current chair of the weekly software telco asked Eva for a sabbatical period in this telco as he received several complaints about Eva disturbing the telco with comments, impractical suggestions and actions that do not help to reach the goal to get the software tested. -- Juergen Bruckner CAcert Assurer, CAcert OrganisationAssurer CAcert.org - The Community CA E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org CellPhone: +43.660.5147221 VoIP: +43.720.984221 Web: http://www.cacert.org [8 PDF attachments]
-----Original Message----- From: Eva Stöwe [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:07 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org'; Inopiae@cacert.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Arbitration case a20150420.1 init mailing - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority Hello, I cannot see any dispute against me, as it is NOT documented in the casefile. As long as I am not informed about the dispute, it is impossible to answer the dispute. To have a valid (and fair) case the respondent should be informed about the accusations. Also if this case is about the case a20141024.1 the CM quite likely has to be a respondent, as well. If it is NOT about a20141024.1 the new dispute is NOT in line with the first original dispute in any way. So the original dispute has to be considered to be removed. In that case the original case was dropped and a new case would have had to be installed. If it is about a20141024.1 this has to be an appeal which has to wait after the original case is closed, which is currently not the case because of recent activities (and because of the ruling). In this case a20150420.1 should wait until then and you should step out of the case until this case can be picked up in a correct manner. [...]
-----Original Message----- From: Eva Stöwe [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:14 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org'; Inopiae@cacert.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Arbitration case a20150420.1 init mailing - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority Hello, sorry, I just saw that there was an attachment. it would have been good to have it mentioned. I do accept CCA and DRP but I do not accept Uli as the Arbitrator of this case as it is documented within the OTRS (s20150125.148) that it is quite likely that he was involved in the creation of the dispute, which would be a CoI with the position of the Arbitrator of this case. The DRP forbids such a CoI. He also has violated the Arbitration guidelines at more or less every possible step, so far. It is unlikely that he would handle this case in a unbalanced and fair manner, as the DRP requests. IF Uli wants to handle this case further, please give a CARS that there was no involvement of you in the creation of the dispute at all and that you will handle the case unbalanced and fairly regarding both sides. This CARS should be easy to give, so I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. IF there is such a CARS I can accept Uli handling the case as an Arbitrator. And I will assume that I will get a comparable treatment (so that there is not only voice contact to one side, for example). Also again, I ask you to either drop the parts regarding open cases or to handle them as an appeal. This IS required by the DRP as well! I know that there is a lot of hatred against me involved (for whatever reasons, as people are refusing to answer according questions) but please take care that you do not do more collateral damage than you already have done to the Arbitration system and by this the basis of CAcert. Take care to handle this case correctly. I have no issue to answer the dispute. Most of it is easily explained. But when it is addressed, please first take care that the claimants describe what policies etc. I would have violated by which of the actions that they have collected. Most of the things that I did are already documented to be based on our policies! The only thing that I may have done would have been the closing of the support case, but I cannot remember anything about closing it. If I did this, I did it by accident. You can see this easily by the comment that I placed (that I did not have the intention to handle that case) and by adding a closure comment that is pointing to another case that I was handling. However as there probably was no real dispute involved in that case to begin with, as everybody was saying the same. Anyway IF this was an issue THEN I have to ask you why Marcus who was one of the claimants of that case was handling that case afterwards. There are other support members with access to the OTRS who can be asked to do something like this. At least Michael is responding, when he is directly addressed. As the OTRS admin he would have been the first person to go to, as well. [...]
(C3) accepts CCA/DRP
-----Original Message----- From: reinhard [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:31 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; 'Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org'; Inopiae@cacert.org; firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Arbitration case a20150420.1 init mailing - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority Hi all, I hereby confirm to accept the Arbitration under the CAcert Community Agreement  and the Dispute Resolution Policy . My point of view to case a20140518.1 in short: Whenever a member of CAcert Inc. acts against the interests of CAcert and another member requests an action to stop that behaviour and clarify the situation it is unlikely to twiddle one's thumbs. That is what the arbitrator did. Reinhard
(C1) accepts CCA/DRP
-----Original Message----- From: Juergen Bruckner [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:48 AM To: Ulrich Schröter; Eva Stöwe; Inopiae@cacert.org; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: RE: Arbitration case a20150420.1 init mailing - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority Hello to all, I, Juergen Bruckner, hereby confirm to accept the Arbitration under the CAcert Community Agreement as  and the Dispute Resolution Policy as . Juergen Bruckner CARS Juergen Bruckner
(C4) accepts CCA/DRP
-----Original Message----- From: Benny Baumann [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:29 PM To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org'; Inopiae@cacert.org; email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Subject: Re: Arbitration case a20150420.1 init mailing - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority Dear Arbitrator, dear Case Manager, dear fellow claimants, dear respondent, Am 10.06.2015 um 00:27 schrieb firstname.lastname@example.org: > Dear Eva as named respondent, > and as claimants: Juergen, Marcus, Reinhard, Benny, > > I'll take this case as Arbitrator Ulrich Schroeter > (email@example.com). The Case Manager is Alex Robertson > (firstname.lastname@example.org), the case number is a20150420.1 Thanks. > > The status of the case is recorded at . If you notice any missing > or wrong information, feel free to provide us your point of view. See below. > > > Like every case this also is opened by some formalities: > > 1. Please reply to this email and confirm that you accept the > Arbitration under the CAcert Community Agreement  and the > Dispute Resolution Policy . CCA+DRP ACK. > 2. The governing law will be that of NSW, Australia. It is possible > to request a change of law, but it is unlikely to be helpful in > this case. ACK. > 3. You need to notify me if you are seeking legal counsel (a > lawyer). This is not recommended. Rather, if you feel the need for > help, I can ask an experienced Assurer to assist you. None at the current time. I'll ask for one if this seems to become necessary. > 4. If you feel the case is moving slowly please ask the Dispute > Resolution > Officer for advice via an email to email@example.com. k. > 5. The next thing I would like both sides to do is to prepare a short > email that outlines their viewpoint. No longer than a page, please! > For the claimants: a short statement from each claimant in that > he confirms his part in this longer combined dispute filing (see > below and attachments) I support the part outlined by Jürgen in the dispute filing about the aspects referring to the Software Telco. If necessary I agree to publishing a copy of one additional mail sent by the respondent on that subject to me personally. Also I agree on the aspects brought up regarding the aftermath of bugs 649/807. For the other parts of the dispute I'll back off for now though I won't stay silent if there's anything I need to say. > > Finally, please remember: this forum is about sorting out our common > difficulties and improving our ability to secure ourselves. Unlike other > forums, we will all be required to work together after this Arbitration, > so I ask you to maintain a positive and helpful spirit at all times! Sure. > > The proceedings of the Arbitration have to be in English. If you have > troubles > expressing yourself in English we can try to find a translator for you. > k. Kind regards, BenBE.
(C2) accepts CCA/DRP
-----Original Message----- From: INOPIAE (Marcus) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:46 PM To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Juergen Bruckner | CAcert.org'; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Arbitration case a20150420.1 init mailing - Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority Dear Uli, I hereby confirm to accept the Arbitration under the CAcert Community Agreement  and the Dispute Resolution Policy . So far I have nothing to add to the two subjects "Dispute about who decides how support organizes its work internally" and "Dispute for sending out a mail from the WebDB regarding bug 649" [...]