election-services message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [election-services] EML BUSINESS CASE
- From: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
- To: John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:51:36 -0700
John,
OK - I'll bite! The first page needs some wordsmithing at
minimum - I'll invest editing in some suggestions - and improving the
message on how standards 101 create a better more stable marketplace
longterm. There's a few places in the document where better
layout and formatting will aid delivery of the message too. I just
finished writing something for WSJ and their author layout guidelines
look like they could be handy here too (more standards!?!).
Otherwise - the document does appear to be hitting most of the key
points - just seems like cleaner organization would help - and also a
ToC page...
Seems like there is a complimentary executive briefing to this - on
what will happen if you just let market forces rule - the American
experience!
I notice that for example the law suit just filed in Florida
alleging failures of the voting systems there that led to an improper
election result. A simple undervote warning message on screen
could have made all the difference but was not implemented. Could
that have been avoided by using standards and having formal
certification and conformance test suites?
Similarly - the cost of certification itself - and proprietary
software solutions - for example NYC recently required vendors to under
go certification that costs $280K - before they even consider who they
will give contracts to.
Ultimately the customers pick up the tab for all this - and in the
case of Maryland that to date has spent $100M and counting on its
voting machines - that works out around $50 per voter per ballot
cast!
Clearly having folks like the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) in the US - actually get funding to investigate use
of voting standards and develop test and confirmance suites would pay
back 100 fold on whatever that may cost. However right now
America has collectively spent $2B on voting systems but has no way to
measure the quality and assurance of those systems.
As they say in the Guinness beer advertisements over here
"BRILLIANT!".
DW
"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472
B.C.)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[election-services] EML BUSINESS CASE
From: John Borras
<johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, November 28, 2006 6:57
am
To: EML TC <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
You may remember that I pushed out a draft of this document earlier
this year and asked for comments. None were received. But
having been to the Council of Europe meeting last week, during which
EML was re-affirmed as the recommended standard to be used by Member
States, there is a need to get this published as soon as
possible. There are still many mis-conceptions about EML,
particularly about localising it,
and many countries haven't started the
e-voting journey yet and need some help and education about where
and how to start. I believe this document will serve these
purposes very well. So could I have any comments on the
latest draft, which is on the TC website in the Related Documents
folder, in the next few days please. I will take
silence as acceptance.
Regards
John
M. +44 (0)7976
157745
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]