- Case Number: a20150216.1
- Status: init
Claimant: EvaStöwe
Respondent: BernhardFröhlich, MartinGummi
initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter, later EvaStöwe disclosed dispute and its withdraw based on DRO decision 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: appeal against the second ruling of a20150114.2
2015-02-18: withdraw: appeal against the second ruling of a20150114.2
- Relief: TBD
Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: BernhardFröhlich (R1) MartinGummi (R2), Claimant: EvaStöwe (C), Case: a20150216.1
Contents
History Log
2015-02-16 (issue.c.o): case s20150216.145
2015-02-18 (issue.c.o): case s20150218.166
- 2015-09-09 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A, sent notification to (C), (R1), (R2)
Private Part
Link to Arbitration case a20150216.1 (Private Part)
EOT Private Part
Original Dispute
Hello, my dispute for a20150114.2 consisted of two parts. I am fine with the handling of the first part. But I cannot accept how the second part was handled. The second part was to check, "why the wrong version was installed and if this should lead to further actions." But the Arbitrator only focussed on an incident that was neither nesseccary nor complete. The incident was filed after the dispute, by this the dispute can never have covered it and I clearly stated that it should not be about that incident but about the actions themselves. This was ignored by the Arbitrator. I would be fine with the ruling and the case if the focus to the incident would be removed and the whole issue would be covered.
withdraw of dispute:
Hello, as the software team seams to have stopped to block the actions, it hopefully does not matter any more if the authorisation of the PolO to do the same as was explicitly stated to be allowed for the Auditor - while this was not questioned openly, but the actions of the PolO (to ask Crit to do something) were, more than once - I withdraw the appeal. However I just hope that will not backfire when Crit has to be addressed to execute the script to send the mails. It does not look like this would be done by someone from the software team so it has to be done by me. - That the PolO was allowed to do so was the reason for the incident and that the PolO had tried to do so was not covered by the incident. This was not clearly answered by the Arbitrator, as the part of "Emergency Actions" after "Process of installing the patches" allow to limit the clear answer that was given in "Process of installing the patches". But as long as people do not hinder the execution of the mail further, I can live with this not being clarified.
Discovery
Elaboration
Ruling
Execution
Similiar Cases