* Case Number: a20130421.1
  * Status: init
  * Claimants: UlrichSchroeter
  * Respondents: CAcert
  * Initial Case Manager: AlexRobertson, at 2016-12-08 EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20161119.4|m20161119.4]] and [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20161119.3|m20161119.3]]
  * 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: Status of Access Engineer team in question
  * Relief: Plz review current state of Access Engineer team if it fulfills SP requirements.

Before: Arbitrator name arbitor (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: UlrichSchroeter (C), Case: a20130421.1


== History Log ==
 . 2013-04-29 (issue.c.o) case [[https://issue.cacert.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentZoom&TicketID=220871|s20130427.129]]
 . 2013-04-29 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
 . 2013-04-30 (iCM): further email from (C)

== Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part) (optional) ==

 * '''Link to Arbitration case [[Arbitrations/priv/a20130421.1|a20130421.1 (Private Part)]], Access for (CM) + (A) only)'''  

## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT
<<Include(Arbitrations/priv/a20130421.1)>>  
## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT

==== EOT Private Part ====
== Original Dispute ==
{{{
> > Dear CAcert,
> > 
> > current state of Access Engineer team is quite diverse.
> > On the wiki page
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/SystemAdministration/Team
> > I've edited the documentation of Access Engineer team members while 
> > trying to find the related Arbitration case numbers and Board motion 
> > numbers of the Access Engineer team members nomination procedure. 
> > AE's that are to be bound by SP 
> > https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/Policies/SecurityPolicy.html
> > Effected SP paragraphs:
> > SP 1.1.1 covered personal
> > SP 2.3.1. Access Authorisation
> > SP 2.3.5. Physical Security codes & devices SP 3.4.2. Special 
> > Authorisation SP 3.4.4. Removing access SP 9.1.1. Roles and 
> > responsibilities
> >  * Access Engineer: responsible for controlling access to hardware, 
> > and maintaining hardware.
> > SP 9.1.2. Staffing levels
> > SP 9.1.3. Process of new Team Members SP 9.1.4. Arbitrated 
> > Background Check - Procedures SP 9.1.4.2. Coverage SP 9.1.4.3. 
> > Documentation SP 9.1.4.4. Privacy for Critical Roles SP 9.1.5. 
> > Authorisation
> > 
> > 
> > SP 3.4.2. Special Authorisation
> >  Additional or special access is granted according to the 
> > authorisations on the below access control lists (see §1.1.1):
> > List Name             Physical Control List
> > Who                   Access Engineers
> > Purpose of access     control of access by personnel to hardware
> > Relationship          exclusive of all other roles 
> > Manager               Access team leader
> > 
> > All changes of personnel to the above lists are subject to Board 
> > approval.
> > 
> > From the Access Engineers team members list under 
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/SystemAdministration/Team
> > I only could find a board motion and an Arbitration case regarding 
> > Arbitrated Background Check for Stefan Kooman
> > 
> > SP 9.1.3. Process of new Team Members
> >   New team members need:
> >   o  Recommendation by team leader
> >   o  Arbitrated Background Check ("ABC")
> >   o  Authorisation by Board
> > 
> > For the critical sysadmins, there exist at least a board motion
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/EmailBoardDecisionsUpdateFeb2008#m20080608.1
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/EmailBoardDecisions2008-09#m20090202.2
> > https://wiki.cacert.org/EmailBoardDecisionsUpdateFeb2008#m20081006.1
> > but for the Access Engineer team the documentation lacks the ABC 
> > process and a board motion (!)
> > 
> > From my current PoV, we currently have only one Access Engineer team 
> > member. This clashes SP 9.1.2. Staffing levels "Each team should 
> > have a minimum of two members available at any time."
> > 
> > Ok, "should" ... but keep in mind, that before Stefan Kooman has 
> > been nominated by m20110717.4, probably no Access Engineer was 
> > nominated before ?!?
> > that makes all activities that happened before questionable under SP
> > 
> > There is a link with Oophaga regarding Access Engineer personal in 
> > the MoU
> >
> https://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/hosting/CAcert-Oophaga-MoU-Si
> gned-20090810.pdf
> >  (Contact and Access Control)
> > but this doesn't release the requirement for a successful conducted 
> > ABC for team members falling under SP (if SP doesn't clashes the MoU 
> > contract).
> > 
> > So the relief is:
> > Plz review current state of Access Engineer team if it fulfills SP 
> > requirements.
}}}

== Discovery ==

== Ruling ==

== Execution ==

== Similiar Cases ==

----
 . CategoryArbitration
 . CategoryArbCaseSystemTasks
 . CategoryArbCaseOthers