Re: Fwd: Jurisdictional focus

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 23:30:14 CDT

Hello Arthur:

    I like your analysis. Just so you know, some counties, including San
Diego, have 'rationalized' their election cycle so that interim posts are
filled by appointment until the next regular election and ballot proposals
cannot get their own elections. They have to be combined with regular

    I wonder if we have some Project Management people participating. It
sounds like we need to get someone with an appropriate background in
software development to pull together a generic list of tasks and then we
could start try to attach some times and maybe put it into a CPM network. I
ask for others to help because I know about 'it' but I don't really know
'it'. If I were the UC, I'd like to see something like that in a proposal.

    I do have another idea. Pick a California college town and ask them
if they think that we could set up a parallel system at some polling
place(s). Once people have voted, ask them if they could test the new
system. Have the same ballot as the DRE's. It could be useful for the
human engineering tests that seem to be needed and probably adequate for a
pilot. It also could be a nice little bit of publicity. I'm suggesting a
college town because they'd possibly be more open to such a thing and have a
little more time than most of us working stiffs.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Keller" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] Fwd: Jurisdictional focus

> I was toying with the idea of doing a full court press for pilot use
> this fall. However, the risk of failure is too great and the
> spotlight will be very bright. Risk management dictates that we had
> better do it right than quickly. We may want to do pilot use of an
> incomplete system for the primary elections in California in spring
> 2005. However, it is unlikely that our pilot system could be
> certified, and that itself could be a bar to pilot use.
> My goals for the California project, where I would be Principal
> Investigator, is to produce a complete software system by June 2005.
> Get it certified and use it in pilots in fall 2005. Iterate and
> improve it (getting it certified *again*) for use it in larger pilots
> in spring 2006. General availability for fall 2006. We would then
> evaluate the system, make one last pass of improvements (getting it
> certified *again*) for spring 2007. The R & D contract would end at
> the end of the summer of 2007. Note that UC would not be the entity
> that arranges for certification, but it could be the OVC that
> arranges for it. The statement of work for UC will include assisting
> that entity. (Because I have a conflict of interest, it will be
> someone else at UCSC who decides whether the OVC will be the
> subcontractor on the project and how much the subcontract is for.)
> Best regards,
> Arthur
> At 8:02 AM -0700 4/28/04, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
> >Hello Dave:
> >
> > I'm just trying to stimulate discussion, not
> >start a civil war. I've already conceded in advance
> >that this is a somewhat 'provincial' proposal. If
> >Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts or Baja-Norte, Mexico,
> >feels that it can rapidly mobilize for at least a 3
> >polling place pilot test, more power to them! Again,
> >I strongly feel that there absolutely needs to be some
> >sort of goals and some sort of schedule to focus
> >efforts.
> >
> >Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= 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 23:17:21 2004

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