• Arbitrations
• a20150725.1

• Case Number: a20150725.1
• Status: declined
• Claimant: CAcert Software Assessment Team (C1) rep. by Benny Baumann (C1a) (TL blocked by CoI), CAcert Support Team (C2) rep. by Marcus Mängel (C2a)
• Respondent: Eva S. (R1), CAcert Inc. Board (R2)

• initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter

• Case Manager:
• Arbitrator:
• Date of arbitration start:
• Date of ruling:
• Case closed: 2016-11-26
• Complaint: Harm to swift processing of security issue
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: Eva S. (R1), CAcert Inc. Board (R2) Claimant: CAcert Software Assessment Team (C1) rep. by Benny Baumann (C1a) (TL blocked by CoI), CAcert Support Team (C2) rep. by Marcus Mängel (C2a), Case: a20150725.1

History Log

• 2015-07-25 (issue.c.o): case s20150725.27

• 2015-09-07 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A, sent notification to (R1), (R2), (C1a), (C2a)
• 2016-11-19 (DRO): declined arbitration case a20150725.1 - "Harm to swift processing of security issue"

• 2016-11-26 (PietStarreveld): Send case closed notification to all parties concerned

• 2016-11-26 (PietStarreveld): Case closed as 'declined'

Link to Arbitration case a20150725.1 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

• > Dear Arbitration,
  > 
  > the Software Assessment Team recently has been made aware of a security
  > issue through support. After communication with the reporter of the
  > security issue additional information had to be retrieved from the
  > critical systems.
  > 
  > Due to the lack of the Key Persons List, required by SP, mandated by C2
  > and to be compiled by C1, additional work had to be done, to retrieve
  > emergency contacts for various contacts. This additional work delayed
  > handling the issue and could have been avoided if the Key Persons List
  > had been available as required by SP.
  > 
  > Please investigate why it has not been made available since the
  > announcement of being ready for delivery posted on 2015-05-14, what
  > caused the delays, and which (if any) data is still missing. Who
  > provided their data in time and thus could have been reached properly if
  > even an incomplete copy of the Key Persons List would have been made
  > available in time.

Further communication

A review of this case as reported on the board mailinglist led to the following remarks posted by claimant C1a on 2016-08-24. For brevity, only the relevant part of that entire mail is included here.

[full quote of dispute]

---

The CoI of the SW TL was with the TL at that time being Board 2014/2015.
As Board had to be respondent (as they are required by SP) to compile
the list, they have to be held accountable for compiling it, even if
they delegate this work.

R1 has to be pulled into this case for failing to complete the assigned
task despite proclaiming otherwise; thus violating the trust that other
members could place into this member regarding reliability and handling
of personal information.

Should this case be dropped or not be handled by 1st December 2016, a
notification to OFT will be sent.

DRO decision to decline arbitration case a20150725.1

On 2016-11-19 the DRO declined case a20150725.1 with m20161119.3:

Decline arbitration case a20150725.1 as DRO

Resolved, that case is a20150725.1 is declined, as per DRP 1.5.  In making
this assessment, board acting as DRO notes the following.

0. Comments
https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2016-08/msg00012.html
incorporated into the case file.

1. That, there is an active case a20150725.2 over the main topic.

2. That, the case is misfiled, as a. no remedy is requested, and b. the
cause or complaint is not clear.  Especially the words “Please
investigate why…” indicate that this is a team grumble, and the
Arbitration forum is neither an investigative service nor a way to attack
other teams.

3.  The closing remarks “Should this case be dropped or not be handled
by 1st December 2016, a notification to OFT will be sent” are tantamount
to a threat, and by going over the top of the Arbitration forum, place the
claimants in breach of CCA.

4. This case was filed into private part which should be reversed. 
Everyone is to be reminded that the privacy possibilities of case
management should be reserved for cases where there is a need for privacy. 
This case is to be made open.

Ruling

None - DRO has declined arbitration case a20150725.1

Related Cases, Tickets and Incidents

• issue ticket s20150726.76

• issue ticket s20150727.18

• incident i20150725.1

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseSystemTasks

• CategoryArbCaseOthers