Re: Re:

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 12:40:18 CDT

On Apr 8, 2005 10:23 AM, Alan Dechert <> wrote:
> I kinda sorta see the logic, but I still don't want it in there -- certainly
> is not what OVC wants to advance. We want, as much as possible, to have the
> glossary reflect what the language we want to use -- not entrench what's
> been practiced in the past. That is, what if the terms are accepted? How
> do we get them out? I'd rather not have them in at all.

+1 on keeping these definitions.

>From a theoretical perspective, it makes sense to model the larger
elections system as having "trusted" subsystems or agents, and then
discuss what happens when the trust is compromised. To this extent, it
is nice to have a definition of trusted and untrusted agents in the
system. Vendors (such as the OVC) are free to design their systems
relying on trusted parties... as well as designing their systems with
no reliance on trust whatsoever.

Maybe there is a better word than "trust"... essentially, we're trying
to define what kind of access a person has based on their official
capacity, right? We could instead use a term that approached
something like permissions... like "restricted access" or "privileged
access". Any other ideas out there?

Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
blog: <>
This email is written in [markdown][]; an easily-readable and
parseable text format.
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= 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 23:17:04 2005

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