Re: Need change to openvoting.org to help NIST comment ALSO Meet ups

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 10:53:08 CDT

Hello Folks:

While we're at it, where' the link to the OVC Wiki?
That's chock full of scholarly resources and
definitions. Yes, the quality is uneven but it is a
good resource.
=======================================
Also, because no one has responded to make back
channel requests, I'm having my first OVC San Diego
meet up tomorrow and I have several questions:

1. What should I talk about and not talk about?
2. I recall in the summary business plan something
about collection $1/head/meeting at meet ups? Is this
the case?
3. I've never even been at a meet up let alone
organized one, what are the protocols? Am I the
chairman of a meeting? Who pays? Are decisions by
majority or consensus assuming a small group? Do you
use an agenda? etc. etc.

HELP!

Thanks, Ed Kennedy
--- David Mertz <voting-project@gnosis.cx> wrote:

> This is probably for Chito, but if someone else is
> working on the OVC
> website.
>
> I am working on comments on the EAS Glossary.
> Hopefully, I will be
> joined by member of the OASIS EML TC, and by other
> members of the IEEE
> P-1622 committee (hi Kurt, I'll email off-list).
> Actually, Arthur
> would you like to sign as a P-1583 member? Jan would
> be good too. And
> are you out there Charlie.
>
> Anyway, I want to suggest OVC as an additional
> reference source for
> inclusion in Appendix A of the document; and to
> reference several
> entries as OVC. To do that, I'd like a bit more
> academic weight at the
> URL. The basic FAQ URL is a good start:
>
>
> http://openvotingconsortium.org/modules.php?name=FAQ
>
> But to really make it usable as a reference, I think
> it should include
> *prominent* links to ALL the papers at:
>
> http://gnosis.cx/voting/.
>
> These are duplicated, in parts, at:
>
> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1029189
>
>
http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/keller/keller-papers.html
>
> Arthur includes a many papers that do not relate to
> OVC in his page
> though.
>
> Specifically, the links to these should be given
> greater prominence
> than those external resources listed under Reference
> Materials. That
> is, the writing the I have done, and on some of
> which subsets of
> Arthur, Joe, Karl, Arnie, and Alan have been
> coauthors, should be
> indicated as more-or-less "official OVC documents."
> Not to say that
> certain details are not subject to change or
> disagreement; but we want
> the NIST/EAS to look at something that reads
> sufficiently like academic
> papers.
>
> Ok... really late bedtime for me. Half of you are
> probably waking up
> now. I attach a draft of my comments. but this is
> only about 1/2
> done, so don't complain about the things I simply
> have not gotten to
> yet. That said, contributions/comments on my
> submission are welcomed,
> so I might as well let the list see what I've worked
> on so far.
>
> --------------------------------
> To: voting@nist.gov
>
> Comments on Glossary for Voting Systems (DRAFT)
> http://www.eac.gov/voting_glossary.asp
>
> David Mertz, Ph.D.
> Technical Editor and Member, IEEE P-1622
> Chief Technology Officer, Open Voting Consortium
> URL: http://gnosis.cx/voting/
> Email: <mertz@gnosis.cx>
>
> Co-signer #1
> Affiliation
> [...]
>
> IEEE
> Standards Coordinating Committee 38
> (SCC 38) Voting Standards
>
> Gentlepersons,
>
> We have had an opportunity to review the Election
> Assistance
> Commission's Glossar for Voting Systems draft, and
> would like to provide
> commentary on the draft.
>
> Portions of the remarks concern the clarity and
> consistency of the
> draft. For example, in certain cases, a term is
> used in one definition
> but defined in an inconsistent manner elsewhere. In
> general, these
> inconsistencies reflect your efforts to integrate
> materials from
> multiple sources, each using somewhat different
> terminology.
>
> The most significant comments we provide here are
> suggestions for the
> inclusion of several additional terms used in
> discussions of voting
> systems. In support of the additional terms, and
> partially to support
> our clarifications of existing terms, we suggest
> several additional
> reference sources for inclusion in Appendix A.
>
> The comments below have the form of proposed
> entries, with the list of
> such entries containing both a subset of existing
> terms and our new
> terms. Each entry is given as we believe it should
> read, and is often
> followed by an explanation (indented) expanding on
> the motivation for
> the entry. We do not recommend the explanation for
> inclusion in the
> entry itself, but simply to provide context.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ABANDONED BALLOT: Ballot that the voter did not cast
> into the ballot box
> or record on a DRE before leaving the polling place.
> See also Fled
> Voter.
>
> Explanation: the wording of the draft is
> grammatically awkward; no
> substantial content change is proposed.
>
> ACCESSIBILITY: [...draft text...] See also
> Usability.
>
> Explanation: Accessibility is a specific subset
> of usability concerns,
> and the relationshiop should be emphasized.
>
> ANONYMITY: Preventing the disclosure of the identity
> of the voter
> associated with a Cast Ballot. Neither the
> individual identity nor the
> aggregate characteristics of voters may be
> associated with Cast Ballots,
> except those characteristics mandated by law. For
> example, an election
> authority might be permitted to disclose the
> aggregate votes of
> party-unaffiliated voters, but will be prohibited
> from dislosing the
> aggregates of only blind voters. See also
> Confidentiality.
> Association: Security
> Source: No Attribution
>
> AUDIT TRAIL FOR DRE: Paper printout of votes cast,
> produced by Direct
> Record Electronic Voting Systems, which election
> officials may use to
> crosscheck electronically tabulated totals.
>
> Explanation: The term DRE was expanded in a
> fashion inconsistent with
> it definition elsewhere. Multiple usages of the
> same acronym exist in
> elections discussions, but this glossary should
> choose a consistent
> term.
>
> BALLOT MEASURE: Legislation pertaining to the
> adoption of laws,
> statutes, resolutions, and/or amendments to state
> constitutions that
> appear on the ballot for approval or rejection.
>
> Explanation: Particularly at a municipal or
> county level, some ballot
> measures are neither laws nor amendments. Adding
> statutes and
> resolutions seems inclusive.
>
> BALLOT SCANNER: Device used to read the data from a
> paper Ballot.
>
> Explanation: Marksense is only one of numerous
> technologies used, or
> potentially used, for electronic recognition of
> ballots. OCR, barcode
> scanners, or other data encoding are possible and
> used. For example,
> see http://www.fec.gov/pages/marksnse.htm which
> states: "marksense
> technology is only one of several methods for
> recognizing marks on
> paper through optical reading techniques."
>
> COUNTED BALLOT: Ballot that has been processed and
> whose votes are
> included in Contest vote totals.
>
> Explanation: The definition of Contest includes
> items not listed in
> the draft definition of Counted Ballot, such as
> referenda,
> propositions, etc. A uniform reference to
> Contest, defined elsewhere,
> assures uniformity.
>
> COVERT CHANNEL: A communications channel that
> transfers information
> using a method not documented in the formal
> description of a protocol or
> document format. For example, a Ballot Image or
> Audit Trail may disclose
> information that would violate Anonymity and/or
> Confidentiality, through
> either design error or malice.
> Association: Security, Software Engineering
> Source: OVC
>
> CUMULATIVE VOTING: Practice where voters are
> permitted to cast multiple
> votes distributed among multiple candidates. Voters
> are not limited to
> giving exactly one vote to each candidate. Instead,
> voters may cast
> multiple votes on one or more candidates, limited by
> the total votes
> they are assigned.
>
> Explanation: While the most common cumulative
> method may give voters a
> number of votes equal to the number of
> candidates, such a relationship
> is not defining of cumulative voting. A
> particular system within the
> definition might give voters exactly 10 votes to
> distribute, or 1/2
> the number of the candidates, or 2x the number of
> candidates, etc.
>
> DIRECTLY VERIFIABLE: Voting system that allows the
> voter to verify at
> least one representation of his or her ballot with
> his/her own senses,
> not using any software or hardware intermediary.
> Examples of directly
> verifiable voting systems include Voter Verifiable
> Paper Ballots and
> Marksense ballots. A DRE cannot be directly
> verifiable, since it by
> definition relies on an Electronic Voting Machine as
> an intermediary.
> See also Indirectly Verifiable.
> Association: Voting, Security
> Source: OASIS, OVC, IEEE 1583
>
> DRE DISPLAY: Part of the DRE the displays the Ballot
> Format.
>
> Explanation: Just adjusting the definition to use
> the term Ballot
> Format rather than the undefined term 'electronic
> record'.
>
>
> ELECTION MARKUP LANGUAGE (EML): ???
> Association: Voting, Standardization, Software
> Engineering
> Source: OASIS, IEEE 1622
>
> ELECTRONIC BALLOT IMAGE (EBI): See Ballot Image.
> Association: Voting
> Source: OVC, EML
>
> Explanation: The term EBI is widely used to refer
> to sense (1) of the
> Ballot Image definition.
>
> RECONSTRUCTED ELECTRONIC BALLOT IMAGE (REBI): An
> electronic record of
> all votes cast by a single voter that is created by
> scanning a Voter
> Verified Paper Ballot. An REBI may be compared to
> its corresponding EBI
> in the course of a Canvas and/or Audit.
> Association: Voting, Security
> Source: OVC
>
> SUMMARY PAPER BALLOT (SPB): A type of VVPB in which
> only affirmative
> voting preferences are contained on a human-readable
> ballot. For
> example, a SPB might contain the name of a voter's
> preferred candidate,
> but omit the names of non-preferred candidates for
> typographic and
> handling convenience
> Association: Voting
> Source: OVC.
>
> VOTER VERIFIED PAPER AUDIT TRAIL (VVPAT): See Voter
> Verified Audit
> Record.
>
> Explanation: The acronym VVPAT is both widely
> used, and used in the
> definition of DRE-VVPAT. Its sense is covered in
> the entry for VVAR.
>
> VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT (VVPB): A human-readable
> Voted Ballot
> produced with the aid of an Electronic Ballot
> Printer. In contrast to a
> Voter Verified Audit Record which is generally
> treated as a secondary
> safeguard against failures in electronic records, a
> VVPB is the
> considered primary in identifying a voter's
> intention. See also Voted
> Ballot, Voter Verified Audit Record, Electronic
> Ballot Printer.
> Association: Voting
> Source: OVC
>
>
> APPENDIX A: SOURCES
>
> IEEE 1622
> IEEE P1622 Voting Systems Electronic Data
> Interchange
>
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc38/1622/index.htm.
>
> OASIS
> Organization for the Advancement of Structured
> Information
> Standards, Election and Voter Services TC.
> Producer of Election Markup
> Language (EML).
>
> OVC
> Open Voting Consortium [CA 501(c)6]
>
> http://openvotingconsortium.org/modules.php?name=FAQ
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
858-578-8842
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
I blog now and then at:  <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Sat Apr 30 23:17:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 23:17:22 CDT