- Case Number: a20150726.1
- Status: init
Claimant: EvaStöwe, Benny Baumann
- Respondent: CAcert
initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter, later EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision m20161119.3 and m20161119.4
- Case Manager: name case manager
- Arbitrator: name arbitrator
- Date of arbitration start: 201Y-MM-DD
- Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
- Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
- Complaint: Dispute to remove post from support mailing list archive
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: EvaStöwe (C1), Benny Baumann (C2), Case: a20150726.1
Contents
History Log
2015-07-26 (issue.c.o): case s20150726.76
2015-07-27 (issue.c.o): case s20150727.18
- 2015-09-07 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A, sent notifications (C1), (C2)
Private Part
Link to Arbitration case a20150726.1 (Private Part)
EOT Private Part
Original Dispute
=== Dispute by (C1) Eva Stöwe ==
> Dear Arbitration, > > I hereby file a dispute to get the mail > from: Benny Baumann [email address] > to: [public support mailing list address] > at: [date and time] > subject: Dispute: Harm to swift processing of security issue > > removed from the archive of that list (if it was not previously removed > based on a20101025.1). > > This request does not match the precedents ruling of a20101025.1. The > mail is meant as a dispute but such mails should be directed to > support@cacert.org. Disputes should be handled on the forum of > Arbitration and not on open mailing lists. > > Independent from this concrete mail, I ask to add mails that are meant > to be disputes to a20101025.1 (or add a comparable precedents case). > > > > If a claimant does not care about the difference between both lists (a > lot of people have done such mis-postings between both lists), possible > respondents or other persons named in such a dispute should not be > harmed, especially if they may not even be aware of the posting. > > A dispute can be understood as an indicator that something was done > incorrectly, especially if it is posted to an open list. Even if the > case is dismissed (or withdrawn) later, the dispute will not be answered > on said open list (there will be no reference to the case file). So > anybody who reads that list will not be informed over the same channel > about the result of the case, which often is not the one the claimant > asked for. > > Because of this, I feel that this kind of mails (disputes) should be > removed in general from the support mailing list. > > > The specific named dispute is even worse than normal disputes, as it > already forestalls some things which are the job of the Arbitrator, like > deciding who will be respondents and claimants and numbering and/or > representing them. > > This mail is written as if it would be the header of a case file and by > this implies even more to the readers of the support mailing list, that > all this is already fixed (and maybe even reviewed) by an Arbitrator, > instead of just being a dispute which could in theory even not be > accepted by Arbitration based on DRP 1.5 (which is unlikely in this case > but not decided at the time where the dispute is filed). > > This together - and if one takes into account some previous actions of > the author of that mail against the named first respondent (me) of that > mail - can be read as an attempt to discredit my person. (There is a not > trivial chance that it will be read accordingly, even if it was not > written with this intention.) > > -- > mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards > Eva Stöwe
Dispute by (C2) Benny Baumann
> Dear Support, > > please remove my post to the cacert-support@l.c.o list concerning the > dispute I filed. The mail was accidentially sent to the wrong email > address due to auto-completion issues while handling some > time-constrained work. > > The subject of the mail was "Dispute: Harm to swift processing of > security issue" sent [date and time]. > > Kind regards, > BenBE.
Discovery
Elaboration
Ruling
Execution
Similiar Cases
issue ticket s20150726.76
issue ticket s20150727.18