Green fields

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 17:43:56 CDT

> I want to reuse software developed for this project only when we
> decide that it fits into a greenfield decision of what to build. I
> don't want to bias what we *could* or *should* build just so we can
> use something we already have. Of course, this applies to the
> non-COTS stuff in my message earlier.

I agree with Arthur here. My different hunch about how much will be
reusable -absolutely- doesn't mean we should be bound by any earlier
implementation decision. That includes equally the lines of code
written for EVM2003 and also the choice of COTS support software. We
might well throw away the libraries we've used earlier if they don't
support our production spec.

I think the spec itself is something best worked out here on the
Voting-Project list. I think the OVC-Demo-Team list is for details
about coding. So we might come to some consensus that a given type of
user interface improves voter confidence (say in terms of improving
RII). It's the job of the coders to decide what language, libraries,
etc. make it easiest to implement the desired user interface, and then
do it. It is distinctly NOT the job of coders to say "we've chosen
this library/language/etc., so the interface has to work like this."
The specs should be described without any reference at all to details
like programming language.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:19 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT