Re: FAQ # 8

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Dec 12 2003 - 22:31:53 CST

Alan,

Well put. I also want to make sure that doing so doesn't, as per
your example, put other vendors of touch screen panels at a
disadvantage.

Arthur

At 8:20 PM -0800 12/12/03, Alan Dechert wrote:
>Arthur,
>
>No need to contradict either you or Laird.... but Laird did not say "voting
>hardware vendor." He just said hardware vendor.
>
>I agree with both of you. I doubt a vendor of proprietary voting hardware
>would make a good OVC board member. But a hardware vendor -- say of touch
>screen panels -- might make a good one.
>
>Alan D.
>
>
>> It may make sense to have vendors on the board that agree to the
>> tenets of the Open Voting Consortium. However, vendors of
>> "traditional" closed source, proprietary DREs will likely not agree
>> to those tenets. And unless they do, I would not want any of them on
>> the board.
>>
>> Arthur
>>
>> At 5:32 PM -0500 12/12/03, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>> >This is just one person's opinion, but I like the idea that we have
>> >a few hardware vendors on the board.
>> >

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Wed Dec 31 23:17:09 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:18 CST