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

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Paul,

And this is why I think the work on a common trusted process model
is so crucial.  Once we have that we have a reference point on which
to attached the localized methods and variations.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Spencer" <paul.spencer@boynings.co.uk>
To: <charbel.aoun@accenture.com>
Cc: <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
disabilities concern


> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
>