Re: [election-services] EML v6.0 - PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>]

I should say that I still wonder about supporting arbitrary
alternative voting methods.  I know STV and IRV and cumulative voting
are used quite a bit... but the other methods mentioned in the first
commentors comments seem pretty obscure.  Should we support them now
or after they meet some threshhold? best, Joe

2009/12/29 joehall <joehall@berkeley.edu>:
> I think it's all reasonably straightforward, other than the comments on auditing-related information from Neal McB... that is of high interest in the US where we are actively studying manual-tally auditing methods and have found that getting election results in a format that we can use for computations is very difficult.
>
> I still think Neal's last comment, that having toy or example implementations and more documentation is essential for getting use here in the US.
>
> best, Joe
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 6:12 AM, John Borras <John@pensive.eu> wrote:
>> To kick this off can I ask for you initial high-level views/comments on
>> any/all of the suggested changes by 15 January please.
>
>
>
> --
> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
> UC Berkeley School of Information
> Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
> http://josephhall.org/
>
>



-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/