Re: Fw: ACR 242 Progress

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 17:39:16 CDT

Kudos to Alan for being there and testifying. I was invited to
appear, but declined since Alan would be there and it would have been
a 3 hour drive each way.

Best regards,
Arthur

At 2:34 PM -0700 8/11/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
>Forwarding to the voting-project list message from Bob Reid.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Reid, Bob" <Bob.Reid@asm.ca.gov>
>To: "'Alan Dechert'" <alan@openvotingconsortium.org>;
><voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
>Cc: "Willie Guerrero" <wguerrero@ss.ca.gov>; "Reid, Bob"
><Bob.Reid@asm.ca.gov>; "Richard Dawson" <rcdawson@att.net>; "Jim March"
><jmarch@prodigy.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:29 PM
>Subject: RE: ACR 242 Progress
>
>
>> Yes Indeed the expert testimony of Alan was very helpful. I would have
>been
>> in a bind if I had to answer Murrary's questions. It was also helpful to
>> have the Asst Secretary of State, Willie Guerrero there to offer the
>> Secretary's official support.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Dechert [mailto:alan@openvotingconsortium.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:02 PM
>> To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>> Cc: Willie Guerrero; Reid, Bob; Richard Dawson; Jim March
>> Subject: ACR 242 Progress
>>
>>
>> I testified at the CA State Senate Elections committee
>> (http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/EL/_home1/PROFILE.HTM )
>> hearing about ACR 242. It passed 3-0! (I believe Poochigian and Perata
>> abstained).
>>
>> I suppose the vote was a foregone conclusion, but it was worth going
>anyway.
>> The author (Goldberg) was not there and the chair (Perata) nearly
>postponed
>> the vote. Then Bob Reid (Goldberg's staff) offered to present the bill.
>If
>> I hadn't been there to answer questions, I think it would have been
>> postponed.
>>
>> SoS Kevin Shelley's legislative aid, Willie Guerrero, joined us to present
>> the bill, and he spoke in favor of it.
>>
>> The handout prepared by Goldberg's staff included a fair amount of
>material
>> from the OVC web site, including our "About Us" page and a couple of
>> newspaper articles (SJ Merc "Holy Grail" Editorial and the Clive Thompson
>> NYT article (A Really Open Election ... actually the reprint of it that
>> appeared in the Sacramento Bee).
>>
>> In addition, there were a couple of letters from Richard Dawson (the OVC
>> friend that actually initiated the resolution): one to Goldberg and one he
>> wrote to Perata. There was a letter from Jim March which was rather
>pointed
>> and ended with "In any case, thank you for at least reading this far" with
>a
>> little smiley face emoticon (graphic, not text). And there was a nice
>> authoritative letter from Charlie Strauss which included, "...co-founder
>of
>> Verified Voting New Mexico, and a professional computer scientist at Los
>> Alamos National Laboratory (I do not represent the Laboratory or
>University
>> of California in this letter)." Maybe Charlie would post the whole text of
>> his excellent letter.
>>
>> Then there were a couple of incredibly lame letters in opposition: one
>from
>> California Advocates, Inc. and another--even lamer, if that's
>> possible--letter from AeA ( www.aeanet.org ). The gist of the opposition
>> letters is that we should consider all technologies, open source or not.
>> Let's see [scratching head], haven't we already been considering all the
>> proprietary software--exclusively--over the past 40 years or so? Bottom
>> line in their reasoning seems that if Shelley considers open source then
>> they lose their monopoly on closed source, and they don't like it.
>>
>> I prepared a short statement to hand out. Pursuant to recent discussions
>> about what's official OVC, I titled it "Alan Dechert's statement regarding
>> ACR 242" and said stuff like, "I feel that more serious investigations are
>> appropriate..." so that the statements are not necessarily official OVC
>> positions (although I don't think anyone here would disagree with what I
>> said).
>>
>> At one point, someone (maybe the Republican consultant) asked Willie
> > Guerrero if Shelley needed this resolution to gain the authority to do it
>> (investigate open source). Guerrero said, "no." Then the Rep said, "so
>> he's going to do it anyway." Guerrero said, "we're looking into it."
>> Perata said, "I think I just heard him say, 'yes,' he's going to do it."
>>
>> I will write a letter to all the CA State Senators. The point is not so
>> much to win the vote (we expect to do that), but get people warmed up to
>the
>> idea. Please write letters to CA State Senators (
>> http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp )
>>
>> I will also write a more personalized detailed letter to Senator Murray.
>He
>> asked a couple of good questions that I really didn't have enough time to
>> answer satisfactorily. Both were really chain-of-custody issues. The
>first
>> one, more specifically, was about the development model (getting source
>> included willy-nilly from contributors all over the globe). The other was
>> about the possibility of malware being inserted into open source.
>>
>> Senator Ross Johnson (a Republican) spoke eloquently IN FAVOR of the
>> resolution (I don't think we had a single Republican supporter in the
>> Assembly).
>>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Tue Aug 31 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CDT