Re: FW: EML - NEXT MEETING

[Neal McBurnett <nealmcb@gmail.com>]

Thanks, John for your message.  Those highlighted issues are still the things I'm focussed on, and I'm delighted to dig in.

I think comment 4 can be viewed as a use case to motivate the design, so I do think it is worth going through, perhaps to start with.  I will want to talk about the importance of interoperability though, and I don't yet understand why you don't want it in the standard.   I think it is  worth providing via our web site even if I can't get it in the actual standard.

In the meantime, here again is the example auditable report that I've put up, thanks to much help from David.  I'm sorry it is still more crufty than I like, but some of the nuances of the schemas have eluded me, and I'm still interested in resolving the remaining issues that are described in the comments, and in particular how to properly represent undervotes and overvotes.  Who would be willing to take a shot at that, or point to a different example?

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/electionaudits/eml510-example.xml

Thanks folks,

-Neal

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:26 AM, John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Neal

 

As preparation for our meeting next week I’ve reviewed the comments you made in the v6 Public Review round and in the attached I’ve high-lighted those comments that we need to consider now.  Is this the total of everything we need to look into for this next release or are there other aspects that we should consider?  Your comment 4 is something we can deal with in parallel to building v6.1 although it would not be part of the formal specification. 

 

We’re clearly looking to you as the expert in this field so hope you can give us the time necessary to get this update right.

 

John

 

From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 17 September 2010 17:21
To: 'EML TC'
Subject: RE: EML - NEXT MEETING

 

The consensus date/time for our next call to discuss the points below is Thursday 30 September at 15.00UK/16.00CET/10.00EDT.  Sorry if this doesn’t suit everybody but there doesn’t seem to be a time that everybody can make.  Can you please put this in your dairies and I’ll send out the agenda etc in due course.

 

BTW I’ve had no objections to my proposals set out below so I’m proceeding on the basis of that’s what we are going to do.

 

John

 

From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2010 15:36
To: 'EML TC'
Subject: EML - NEXT RELEASE

 

I’ve been reflecting on the question we discussed yesterday about the content and timescale of the next release of EML and I must say I am persuaded by David’s proposal to do a “quick” v6.1 update covering just the audit area and leave everything else until a later release.   Can I have any objections to this way forward by return please before we get too far down that track.

 

Assuming everyone is happy with this approach I’m attaching the following to start the discussions:

-          An extract from our V6 Spec document of those bits relating to how we have covered auditing to date;

-          The submissions made by Neal in the last Public Review that we held over to this stage;

-          An extract from the Council of Europe Recommendation on e-voting standards covering Audit.

 

Please throw into the pot anything else you know relating to election audit standards.

 

At this stage let’s just focus on the audit requirements and data needs rather than getting deeply into schema changes, that can come a bit later after we’ve agreed a shopping list of changes.

 

Can you provide you preferences in this link for the next call to review this aspect

http://doodle.com/rdws6stynbnvcv3f

 

 

John

 

--
Neal McBurnett                 http://neal.mcburnett.org/