RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one disabilities concern

["Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>]

Hi Charbel,

I agree that the standard needs to change to reflect points found during
implementation. Several changes were made as a result of the 2002 and 2003
experiences, and more as a result of recent implementations for registration
systems. However, I think we are beyond the stage of being able to change
the standard at will. It could change as a result of David's initiative if
it looks like becoming a standard. It could change as a result of future
planned implementations. But not as a result of a "wish" unless it has some
real chance of implementation.

It is not that the standard is frozen, just gradually upping the barrier on
what causes a change as more implementations get put in place. In the
meantime, the extensibility of the core language can be exploited.

Regards

Paul



> -----Original Message-----
> From: charbel.aoun@accenture.com [mailto:charbel.aoun@accenture.com]
> Sent: 21 February 2005 12:59
> To: sibain@tendotzero.com; paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk
> Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
>
>
> In a natural evolution of EML we should expect and I believe it is
> normal to have an evolving EML. Apart from the few suppliers that
> implemented EML in 2003 there is no previous experience or real
> implementation we can refer to. With that in mind and with the fact that
> EML is still changing (though less an less) we can not talk "yet" about
> stability. Stability will be achieved once we have across the board an
> EML compliance and intergation among the vendors. After which we can
> talk stability. Till than expect that while the legislation may be
> changing to accommodate modernization and while the users are
> discovering what they need and can do from this new electronic format,
> EML in the meantime will keep on changing.
> For those who played with EML in 2003 and I am one of them, experience
> showed us what is agreed on in this committee does not necessarily aply
> on the ground or provide a practical solution.
> Cheers
>
> Charbel Aoun
> Accenture eDemocracy Services
> Director of Operations and Technology - International
> 105 Ladbroke Grove
> London, W11 1PG
> United Kingdom
> M +44 794 925 2143
> T  +44 207 616 8414
> Octel 43/ 40363
> email: charbel.aoun@accenture.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Bain [mailto:sibain@tendotzero.com]
> Sent: 21 February 2005 09:14
> To: Paul Spencer
> Cc: eml
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I am one of those which does implement EML. I am also of the view and
> was very much of this oppinion during the development of the code in the
> 2003 local elections that standards should not change continually, as
> this gives people reasons to not use it and/or continual software
> updates which customers then get annoyed with.
>
> However all standards should be extensible. This does 2 things
> 1) Allows users to input their own tags. (Can be dangerous and not allow
> for open cross border use)
> 2) Allows the standards body to define sub schemas which then can be
> taken into the main schema if required by the using authority.
>
> What a standard should not become is static, which I know you are not
> suggesting. A standard should also not be closed to new thoughts and
> suggestions, even after it has been approved and announced. Again
> something I know that you are not suggesting.
>
>
> So in my oppinion there should be a stable almost non changing standard
> with enough extensibility placed in it to allow other smaller more
> specific schemas to be defined by the standards body and then adopted by
> users. These would plug n to the main schema, making it extensible and
> controllable.
>
> This would then allow for the additions of items after due consideration
> and thought to be added in a sub schema. For ideas put over not only by
> David but also by others as they start to use the schema. The standard
> still remains under the control of the standards body but allows for a
> much easier adoption and sharing ability, and also allow it to grow and
> prosper. After all in 98 at the SGML conference in Paris this is what
> most users and vendors were screaming for in the new XML syntax. Not to
> have a fixed DTD one which was not extensible and one that could not
> move with the rest of the World.
>
> Cheers from a very cold Bedford
> Simon
> --
> Simon Bain
> TENdotZERO
> ----------
> Tel:    0845 056 3377
>         44 1234 359090
> Mobile: 44 (0)7793 769 846
>
> <quote who="Paul Spencer">
> > Simon,
> >
> > The basic point is that people are currently implementing EML, and
> > won't do so if the specification is changing continually. So it is
> > more that we should consider changes as part of an improvement cycle
> > over some specified
> > time period. If David is looking at defining and agreeing an electoral
> > process, that will take some time (perhaps 6-12 months within OASIS,
> but
> > considerably longer to get any nation to agree to adopt it) and EML
> could
> > then be adjusted to fit.
> >
> > At least, that is my understanding and opinion. Perhaps John Borras
> > has a different view.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simon Bain [mailto:sibain@tendotzero.com]
> >> Sent: 20 February 2005 07:57
> >> To: Paul Spencer
> >> Cc: "David Webber " <david@drrw.info>,
> >> election-services@lists.oasis-open.org"@tendotzero.com
> >> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process -
> >> one disabilities concern
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul hi.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "stability".
> >> Do you mean that you do not want any updates to the EML spec or do
> >> you mean that you mean that any future updates should be pllaced on
> >> hold for a given period of time?
> >>
> >> All the best
> >> Simon
> >> --
> >> Simon Bain
> >> TENdotZERO
> >> ----------
> >> Tel:    0845 056 3377
> >>         44 1234 359090
> >> Mobile: 44 (0)7793 769 846
> >>
> >> <quote who="Paul Spencer">
> >> > v4 has been released. We are looking for some stability at the
> >> moment, but
> >> > that does not mean that we don't want to continue to move forwards.
> >> John
> >> > Borras chairs the TC, and this would be a subject for the meeting
> >> > he
> >> is
> >> > suggesting.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> >> >> Sent: 19 February 2005 16:31
> >> >> To: Paul Spencer; election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> >> Subject: Re: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting
> >> process - one
> >> >> disabilities concern
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Paul,
> >> >>
> >> >> Just reviewed the EML docs and schemas and sent some public
> >> >> comments to the OASIS comments list.  Some of this can be
> >> >> addressed now - but other matters are going to need more work.
> >> >> Are we on a timetable to release EML 4.0 here - or do we have
> >> >> another release cycle here to use up?  Otherwise a 4.5 release to
> >> >> catch these other matters clearly is another option.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks, DW
> >> >>
> >> >> > David,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Have you read the EML documents? This is a start on a viable
> >> process.
> >> >> At
> >> >> the
> >> >> > time, we felt we needed a reference process to help us define
> >> >> the schemas.
> >> >> > We also felt that this process would vary a lot
> >> >> internationally. However,
> >> >> > there are certain key points (mainly to do with trust) that can
> >> >> > be standardised on an international basis.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would love to see the OASIS E&VSTC get involved in this, but
> >> >> I wonder if
> >> >> > OASIS is the right place for this. On the other hand, it could
> >> >> be the only
> >> >> > place that would take a truly international (rather than
> >> >> US-centric) view.
> >> >> > Also, from a personal view, having spent a considerable time
> >> helping
> >> >> get
> >> >> EML
> >> >> > to the stage it is, I would like any new initiative to use it.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> >> >> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> >> >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/election-services/mem
> >> > bers/leave_workgroup.php.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> >> > roster
> >> of
> >> > the OASIS TC), go to
> >> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/election-services/members
> > /leave
> > _workgroup.php.
> >>
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/election-services/members/l
> eave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If
> you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and delete the original.  Any other use of the email
> by you is prohibited.