* Case Number: a20141022.3 * Status: init * Claimant: Marcus M * Respondent: CAcert * initial Case Manager: MartinGummi, 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: Dispute about who decides how support organizes its work internally * Relief: TBD Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: name respondent (R), Claimant: name claimant (C), Case: a20141022.3 <> == History Log == . 2014-10-22 (issue.c.o): case [s20141022.25] . 2015-09-08 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A ## == Private Part == * '''Link to Arbitration case [[Arbitrations/priv/a20141022.3|a20141022.3 (Private Part)]], Access for (CM) + (A) only''' ## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT <> ## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT ==== EOT Private Part ==== == Original Dispute == {{{ Dear Arbitration, I file a dispute to clarify who has the power to decide how support tags tickets in the OTRS. Support uses the OTRS system for all work, to assign a request to a member of a ticket group and so on. When a request is entered into the system that request is tagged by support with a coded tag. These tags are needed to get statistical reports from OTRS system and helps us to revise our work and get it better done than before. It is evident that such a tagging must be made by humans because all requests are written by humans and there is no formal language available to describe the request. With the mail from Eva Stöwe, see below, she now demands that support stops tagging and delete all tags. As she qoutes herself in her mail she tried to influence how support structures its work before. The stated tagging of the delete account cases "Log of a20111128.3 applications" [1] on the is a result of her interference into support work, as she claimed that support is not allowed to move all returns from the CCA mailing automatically with a rule in a separate queue. This rule was not applied to the system so that support has no chance to get statistical information about these tickets as they are now in the large dump of automatically closed tickets, roughly 20 000. I removed the C tag from the wiki page [1] on her request. The dispute shall clarify who decides how support tags and structures on its internal needs on support tools that are not open for public view. [1] https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/Audit/a20111128.3 Attached mail from Eva Stöwe acting as policy officer. This mail is available with the OTRS ticket no. s201141020.111 ---- subject: Please remove support category "mass mailing" at least for policy-mail returns return mail address: policy-officer@cacert.org body: Dear Support, I just got aware of the Support category "Type of Issue: Mass Mailing". This was applied to a delete account case which was handled by a delete account precedents case (but could not be finished by Support and was handed over to Arbitration). There already is a category "Delete Account Precedent" and one category "Arbitration Support". Both could have been used for such a case. I get more and more the impression that you are treating policy return mails different than other cases. I already was wondering about "C" and "AC" marks on the delete account page. Before the mailing was started there already was a discussion if you get some folder and a filter to treat those mails differently. I protested against this, back than and was told that the idea was only to make Support work easier. Even than I was told by someone else that there was some discussion to treat those mails differently and to collect them so that one would be able to select them for further handling. As I see it you treat that cases differently and mark them without reason. I definitely have to complain about this treatment. Nobody should be treated differently just because the member got a required mail send to them. Please remove said category and any other collection or mark for all mails that you got in the context of the CCA change notification mail. If you request the authority for this, I ask you for the authority to separate those cases from other cases. You do NOT need such a category to handle the delete account. The normal delete account category would have been more appropriate as you were doing a delete account support action. -- mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards Eva Stöwe CAcert Policy Officer }}} ## You may remove unneeded sections at your discretion... == Discovery == == Elaboration == == Ruling == == Execution == == Similiar Cases == ## || [[Arbitrations/a20YYMMDD.n|a20YYMMDD.n]] || [[Arbitrations/a20YYMMDD.n|]] || ---- . CategoryArbitration . CategoryArbCaseOthers