Re: Where do we go from here. (Was Markamatic proposal)

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 - 10:13:18 CST

Hello Laird
 
So, as we don't have something remotely close for certification under the new rules, should we back off of the Markamatic perhaps except as a test bed for the issues that Doug has mentioned?
 
Thanks, Ed Kennedy
 
laird popkin <lairdp@gmail.com> wrote:
"Some within the OVC have long advocated building "the" OVC system,
a system that would compete with established vendors."

To clarify, OVC would create a software system that would enable
vendors to compete with established vendors. I don't think that anyone
has advocated that OVC itself would be a vendor, any more than the
Apache Project, or the FSF, are vendors.

- LP

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:22:37 -0600, Douglas W. Jones wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2004, at 9:57 PM, Ed Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Hello Doug:
> >
> > OK, that's a model worth examining furthur. So, what weak links in
> > the various product lines have you observed?
>
> There are huge legacy problems with the election management systems of
> some of the big 3, where they use Microsoft Access database formats,
> for example, to do jobs that Access was never intended to solve.
>
> VVPT add-ons for DREs are another possibility. What we need, more than
> anything, to support these, are standard protocols for the data flow
> from
> DRE to VVPT-add-on.
>
> Standard solutions to security problems are another item. I don't care
> what kind of DRE or VVPT or mark-sense system you have, you need to
> load it with election programming in a secure way. You need to get data
> from it to the election management system in a secure way. Modules
> that do these things could be very valuable to vendors who are at a
> complete loss when it comes to how to solve security problems.
>
> > Also, by industrial partners, are you referring to the 'Big 3'
> > voting equipment makers?
>
> I mean them.
>
> > I can see that adopting the model you have suggested (if I understand
> > what you're saying) would be quite a change for the OVC. I understand
> > OVC to want to have its own line of equipment.
>
> Some within the OVC have long advocated building "the" OVC system,
> a system that would compete with established vendors.
>
> Others have always seen the OVC as a framework for developing
> components that would be used by established vendors in much the
> same way that Linux is used by HP, IBM, SGI and many others. In
> this model, OVC would never be a vendor, just like OSF is not a
> vendor. Instead, HP, IBM, etc end up "selling" OSF software.
> Actually, the software is free, what they sell is support, and
> customers pay well for that. In addition, they contribute quite
> a bit to the development of these products.
>
> The truth is, incorporation as an industrial consortium, as we
> did from the start, was always designed to encourage something
> like the latter.
>
> I have never been a partisan of the OVC's EVM2003 project, and
> I've had essentially nothing to do with it.
>
>
>
> Doug Jones
> jones@cs.uiowa.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

-- 
- Laird Popkin, cell: 917/453-0700
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
"We must all cultivate our gardens."  Candide-Voltaire

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:11 2004

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