RE: [election-services] Re: EML AUDIT PROGRESS

["John Borras" <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>]

Neal

I can't make a call in the week before 13 Dec as I will be in Washington on
OASIS meetings.  However we could try for a call in w/b 13th, how does that
fit your dairy?  I haven't seen anything from Arthur yet about a definite
P1622 call that week so hopefully we can get ours fixed first.

Re your queries about how to use the 510 report I'm sure David can help with
that when he's got 5 minutes, but we can of course cover that on our call as
well.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:nealmcb@gmail.com] 
Sent: 23 November 2010 00:22
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Cc: John Borras; EML TC
Subject: Re: [election-services] Re: EML AUDIT PROGRESS

Our audit in Boulder has gone very nicely.  My ElectionAudits software
now supports Kaplan-Markov audits with strict error bounds.  I've also
collected a bunch of ideas on audit reporting from others in the US
and sent them on to Joe.

I'm glad to see more concrete proposals for EML and P1622 from NIST
and a timeline.

The next P1622 meeting will probably be the week of Dec 13th.

Can we schedule an election-services meeting the week before
that, and give Joe and I more concrete incentive to get something
together for the committee?

Note that I'm still looking for some examples of how to label blank
votes and overvotes in a 510 report via the current EML spec, which is
confusing to me in that regard.  E.g. is there a way to use the
BallotStatus property in a 510?  If so, if someone could just adjust
my current example to properly label them I'd apprecate it:

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

As I indicated in my earlier comments, I expect we still need to find
a precise way to report the number of "contest ballots" in a
vote-for-more-than-one contest, but perhaps the exisitng scheme can
work for "vote for 1" contests.

Cheers,

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

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:14:01PM -0500, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:12 AM, John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > Hi Guys
> >
> > Now that the USA elections are out of the way, have you been able to
make
> > any progress on the audit requirements for EML v6.1 please?
> 
> I have been slammed with research this entire month and it doesn't
> look like it will get better soon.  I know Neal has also been wrapped
> up in CO post-election auditing work, although he may have more time
> going forward than I do.  I'll touch base with Neal soon. best, Joe
> 
> > IEEE/P1622 and NIST are planning to hold a workshop in February to
> > essentially decide which standard to pursue for their solution for the
> > UOCAVA project and we will be invited to demonstrate how EML could fit
the
> > bill.  NIST want a P1622 draft standard to be available by June 2011 for
use
> > in the next presidential elections so their work is now gaining real
> > momentum and I would want EML to be there in the forefront of it all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Do we need to have a conference call to discuss progress, issues, next
steps
> > etc?
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John