Re: HR 811 text?

From: Richard C. Johnson <dick_at_iwwco_dot_com>
Date: Tue Feb 06 2007 - 18:07:22 CST

I am particularly interested in the mechanics of the test provisions, together with the payment arrangement. I accept Arthur's point of view that we should focus on improvements rather than rejection, and there certainly are key pieces that need fixing.

The bill should provide a flat $5,000 fee to the vendor for a single government funded test procedure, with the government paying the rest of the cost. Thereafter, all test repetitions following errors would be paid by the vendor. This would allow new companies to compete, promote submitting better code, and eliminate the conflict of interest when vendors hire their own ITA directly. The bill's provisions go part way, charging the vendors and then spending the vendor's money on randomly selected ITAs.

The source code and test results appear to be held by the EAC and then made public. The EAC does not have the staff to become an archive; rather, the bill should make an archive be the recipient of original source and compiled code. The archive can then make source code and test results available to interested parties. Again, the bill goes part way and then gets tangled.

The test technology is not specified, but the bill should establish some means for a reasonable technology to be employed. Formal test plans, automated regression testing, and available test technology exists and should be used.

I quite agree with Alan that unfunded mandates don't cut it. There is no reason why our government cannot afford a few millions from its vast budget to pay for the mandated features in draft of the Holt bill. The "disclosure" language is also beside the point; we want source code and test results (and tests) to be made available on demand to interested members of the public. And the EAC is NOT an archive.

So...let's negotiate amongst ourselves changes to the bill and suggest to Mr. Holt that these changes would improve the draft. I will volunteer to help. Perhaps we can get something better accomplished. Senator Feinstein might be willing to help from the Senate side.

-- Dick

Arthur Keller <> wrote: At 12:37 PM -0800 2/6/07, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>On 2/6/07, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> Okay, thanks, Nancy (and Ron).
>> I just browsed it. It stinks. Unfunded mandates, enshrinement of the
>> politically dominated, ineffective, and inept EAC, incorrect "non-disclosed"
>> software verbiage with nothing to address hardware issues. This bill is
>> moronic.
>I think a good chunk of the mandates are funded. Paid-for auditing,
>$300 million for equipment (that may not be sufficient). I don't like
>the disclosure part either, but for other reasons.
>I posted it here:

Rather than saying we want to kill the bill, I'd rather identify
specifically what improvements can be made to the legislation in
order to garner our support. Saying "no way" is not a negotiating
position, but just freezes us out of process. "Maybe" is a much
better bargaining approach.

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST