Re: First draft of Stepping Stones -- Markamaticproposal. Please read and comment. Details are very negotiablebut the concept is not!

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_at_directell_dot_com>
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 01:43:09 CST

Ed Kennedy said:
> Hello Kathy:
>
> First of all, BIG thank you. Do you view OVC as a hardware/software
>
> vendor? I'm not sure if that is our intent. I think we use to say that
> we were going for a certfied demonstration system and make the
> software publically available. Then vendors would actually sell the
> Markamatic to the various counties. Also vendors would get it
> certified for other hardware platforms. I believe that there are
> several members who are well qualified to start this type of industry.

Yes. Great. My mistake. I meant one of OVC's members should make a bid.

>
> I personally have wondered about having a Vendor level membership
> class
> that would entail either a fixed yearly fee or a per unit sold fee (or
> some combination) to support the consortium's development of the rest
> of the Stepping Stones and the continuous improvements of the software.

That sounds great Ed. I did a little 9 page write up of such a concept with
Arthur Keller.

http://utahcountvotes.org/UVES_concept.pdf

It is really a good write up that should be adopted for a page on OVC's
web site because no where on OVCs current web site currently is there a
good explanation for the layman of what OVC is offering and what the
benefits of an OVC system are.

> At the risk of horrifying potential vendors, I've been thinking along
> the line of a $10,000/year fee as a minimum requirement. In exchange

That does seem steep. How about $50/month ;-) ? Or how about different
"levels" of membership - one that let's members put together a demo and
bid to submit that is low-cost and another that gives them support after
they sell a system? just random thoughts. Some unexpected members may
contribute to the OVC system.

> they could get priority support, trouble shooting, bug fixes; and the
> rest of the typical software publisher type stuff. I'm not sure if

more random thoughts. If they've sold a sytem and need all that extra
support stuff, why don't you charge $500/mo up to x number of hours of
support/year and then charge up to a certain amt/year beyond that if
needed - so you don't get hammered by someone taking too much support
time?

I am not a business person, so ignore me if I'm not being logical, but I
think it's important not to cut the little local county computer
businesses out of an opportunity to build or support OVC systems. And
it's also important to charge enough if you're providing support manhours.

I'm focusing right now on getting an archival and database system up and
running to evaluate all US election results, voter registration data, and
demographic data to the precinct level for elections down to the city
level, so I'm too busy to be much help to OVC right now. It's a fun
project I'm designing with a few other people, with implementation help of
Thomas Knight of TechRadioLive.com, but it takes most of my concentration.

USCountVotes is actually making good progress behind the scenes, esp
considering our funding is so limited. You would think that everyone
would want to donate to such an effort to restore honest accurate
democratic elections in America - just like OVC. I'm shocked at some of
the far less important things people spend money on when they should
donate to OVC and USCountVotes. For example, all the funding for get out
the vote efforts or selling candidates to the public is a complete waste
when votes aren't being accurately counted.

Best,

Kathy

_______________________________________________
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 Fri Dec 31 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST