Re: [election-services] RE: EML UPDATE

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:54 AM, John Borras <John@pensive.eu> wrote:
> Yes we are getting all the ducks in a row between us, IEEE and NIST and in that avoiding duplication of effort etc and at the same time ensuring  a very strong, well thought through standard that would be difficult to ignore or compete with.  The working assumption is that IEEE will produce a USA Localisation of EML as their standard and if that si the case they can accommodate any/all minor flavours of IRV required in USA.  For us the focus in EML has to be on the more readily accepted flavours whilst leaving options for extensibility locally.  So out of DR's comments we will need to decide how much of the detail we try and accommodate in v6.0 and how much we pass to IEEE to deliver.  It may be we can do it all, I don't know and that's where we need some expertise to understand the problem space properly.

Fascinating!

> In terms of helping David I think there are two strands.  First help in understanding and translating in EML terms the requirements, as in this case of IRV/STV, and then secondly helping with the coding changes.  Perhaps you fall more into the former category, in which case can you dig a bit deeper into IRV/STV in USA and let us know what we need to accommodate and how much of DR's comments are just pure theory if any?

Ok, I can take a shot at this. best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/