Re: vendors vowing to cooperate with disclosure?

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sun Apr 22 2007 - 00:56:31 CDT

Joe,

The reference to the ES&S statement involves a public meeting. As I recall,
the subject came up (what if open/disclosed source is required by state law)
and Lou Dedier of ES&S said, "we're staying." As far as I know, that's all
we've seen from ES&S publicly. I don't know if there is a recording or
transcript of Dedier's comment. You should ask Brent Turner about that, or
ask Dedier.

The other instance was with the Hart InterCivic contract in San Mateo. As I
recall, the contract doesn't specifically mention the possibility of
open/disclosed source, but has a blanket provision dealing with changes in
state law that would cover such a change (Hart would comply).

Here is a recording from the BOS meeting where Warren Slocum explains that
the contract contemplates such a change (be mentions open source).

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/SanMateo815BOSmeeting.mp3

Keep in mind that the current bill AB 852 has a much less aggressive
timetable compared to AB 2097. 852 applies to new certifications only and
allows several years for vendors to transition their current products. I
did that so we'd have a better chance to get through the Appropriations
committee this year. Now, with Bowen getting behind it, we have more than a
good chance for passage. It has been amended once (interesting
behind-the-sceens story on that I don't have time to write up right now),
and I think the bill will undergo some additional changes when it reaches
the Senate side.

If you read Bowen's Apr 17 letter carefully, I think you can see that she is
not totally satisfied with the wording in the bill, and expects to have a
say in it when it comes closer to the time the wording will be finalized (I
guess in the Senate Elections Committee this summer. She supports the basic
idea, of course -- requiring public disclosure at a minimum if not open
source.

Alan D.

> Hi all, I know from the Sequoia contract with Alameda that they've
> agreed to cooperate with any future disclosure laws in California.
> Arthur Keller's Palo Alto Weekly piece from a while back says that
> ES&S has also said something similar and I seem to recall someone
> saying that there is a third vendor that has made such a
> representation of future cooperation.
>
> Do we have any source documents for ES&S and this other third vendor?
> That is, I'm trying to figure out, with cites, which vendors have
> explicitly said they would cooperate in the future if CA adopts
> broader voting system disclosure laws. best, Joe
>
> --
> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> UC Berkeley School of Information
> <http://josephhall.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Apr 30 23:17:08 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 23:17:16 CDT