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

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

I think we are in violent agreement here :-)

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: charbel.aoun@accenture.com [mailto:charbel.aoun@accenture.com]
> Sent: 21 February 2005 16:59
> To: paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk; sibain@tendotzero.com
> Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
> 
> 
> Absolutely we can not change at will and this is not what I meant to
> say. I agree with you that we need to follow whatever rules of change we
> will agree or adopt. I just wanted to say irrelevant of how we implement
> change we are still far from stability in EML...Beside EML UK version is
> progressing but the International is still a concept far from being
> table or even fixed....I think what the Uk been doing will have to be
> replicated and when we speak EML we have to specify which EML we are
> talking about. Do you agree? What is said about the UK version can not
> be said about the embryo international version.
> 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: Paul Spencer [mailto:paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk] 
> Sent: 21 February 2005 16:12
> To: Aoun, Charbel; sibain@tendotzero.com
> Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
> 
> 
> 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/m
> > >> >> em
> > >> > 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/membe
> > > rs
> > > /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.
> 
> 
> 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.