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

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

Charbel,

There are two possible uses for the extensions. One is for them to be agreed
for a specific election, and for all those concerned to use them. This keeps
interoperability. The other is for a specific supplier/consortium to adopt
extensions for its own use. This may prevent interoperability in terms of
being able to swap out one part of the system.

Without getting into specific cases here, that is not to say that the second
is never correct.

Regards

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: charbel.aoun@accenture.com [mailto:charbel.aoun@accenture.com]
> Sent: 23 February 2005 15:20
> 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
>
>
> Are you coordinating this approach with the ODPM (in the UK context)?
> In 2003 when a consortium proposed "Enhanced EML" they were almost
> disqualified. At the time EML was still a theory and those who brought
> changes to EML where penalized. Now you indicate that variation would be
> acceptable if necessary and this I know for a fact (not only based on
> the past but current discussions) contradict what is in mind.
>
> 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 19:21
> To: sibain@tendotzero.com
> Cc: eml
> Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process - one
> disabilities concern
>
>
> I half agree. Part of the reason for the extensibility is to allow
> national variations. There are always some things that will change on a
> national basis. These should not need to go through the TC before use.
> If they are sufficiently common to become part of EML, then they should.
> Of course, people may want to consult the TC on whether something is a
> national variation or should be part of EML itself.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Bain [mailto:sibain@tendotzero.com]
> > Sent: 21 February 2005 16:28
> > To: Paul Spencer
> > Cc: eml
> > Subject: RE: [election-services] Defining a trusted voting process -
> > one disabilities concern
> >
> >
> > Ithas certain extensibility built in yes.
> > I am not sure how far this goes as I have not gone through it totally.
> >
> > However the sub schemas should also come from the TC so that they are
> > taken as part of the standard. By creating a schema / dtd in this way
> > you will then be able to keep hold of the standard, whilst allowing
> > people to make / suggest changes without the need to worry about the
> > core schema / dtd having to be changed for everyone.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Simon
> > --
> > Simon Bain
> > TENdotZERO
> > ----------
> > Tel:    0845 056 3377
> >         44 1234 359090
> > Mobile: 44 (0)7793 769 846
> >
> > <quote who="Paul Spencer">
> > > I realised after posting an earlier reply that I should have
> > mentioned the
> > > extensibility of EML. I think it does what you are suggesting here.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >> -----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/l
> eave
> >> _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.