OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

election-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Thanks, John for your message. †Those highlighted issues are still the things I'm focussed on, and I'm delighted to dig in.

I think comment 4 can be viewed as a use case to motivate the design, so I do think it is worth going through, perhaps to start with.††I will want to talk about the importance of interoperability though, and I don't yet understand why you don't want it in the standard. ††I think it is †worth providing via our web site even if I can't get it in the actual standard.

In the meantime, here again is the example auditable report that I've put up, thanks to much help from David. †I'm sorry it is still more crufty than I like, but some of the nuances of the schemas have eluded me, and I'm still interested in resolving the remaining issues that are described in the comments, and in particular how to properly represent undervotes and overvotes. †Who would be willing to take a shot at that, or point to a different example?


Thanks folks,


On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:26 AM, John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


As preparation for our meeting next week Iíve reviewed the comments you made in the v6 Public Review round and in the attached Iíve high-lighted those comments that we need to consider now.† Is this the total of everything we need to look into for this next release or are there other aspects that we should consider?† Your comment 4 is something we can deal with in parallel to building v6.1 although it would not be part of the formal specification.†

Weíre clearly looking to you as the expert in this field so hope you can give us the time necessary to get this update right.


From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 17 September 2010 17:21
To: 'EML TC'

The consensus date/time for our next call to discuss the points below is Thursday 30 September at 15.00UK/16.00CET/10.00EDT.† Sorry if this doesnít suit everybody but there doesnít seem to be a time that everybody can make.† Can you please put this in your dairies and Iíll send out the agenda etc in due course.

BTW Iíve had no objections to my proposals set out below so Iím proceeding on the basis of thatís what we are going to do.


From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2010 15:36
To: 'EML TC'

Iíve been reflecting on the question we discussed yesterday about the content and timescale of the next release of EML and I must say I am persuaded by Davidís proposal to do a ďquickĒ v6.1 update covering just the audit area and leave everything else until a later release.†† Can I have any objections to this way forward by return please before we get too far down that track.

Assuming everyone is happy with this approach Iím attaching the following to start the discussions:

-††††††††† An extract from our V6 Spec document of those bits relating to how we have covered auditing to date;

-††††††††† The submissions made by Neal in the last Public Review that we held over to this stage;

-††††††††† An extract from the Council of Europe Recommendation on e-voting standards covering Audit.

Please throw into the pot anything else you know relating to election audit standards.

At this stage letís just focus on the audit requirements and data needs rather than getting deeply into schema changes, that can come a bit later after weíve agreed a shopping list of changes.

Can you provide you preferences in this link for the next call to review this aspect



Neal McBurnett† † † † † † † †† http://neal.mcburnett.org/

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]