• 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 m20161119.4 and 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

• Link to Arbitration case a20141022.3 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

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

Discovery

Elaboration

Ruling

Execution

Similiar Cases

---

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseOthers