Re: Reviving EVM2003

From: Karl Auerbach <karl_at_cavebear_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jul 19 2004 - 00:14:51 CDT

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Liam Helmer wrote:

> I see no contradiction with using dead candidates... I just want to see
> software that'll be more compelling in terms of us getting funding.

Make sure they are really and sincerly dead - it's amazing how often names
like "Alioto" come up, for example, in San Francisco.

As for writing software that will be compelling - one message that came
through very loud and clear from the Calif Sec. of State's office is that
the resulting system has to:

   - Accomodate absentee ballots. The reason for this is that counties
won't buy off on an incomplete solution - that they want one package from
one vendor.)

   - Be a professional, complete, package. The reason for this is that the
system needs to convey the right image, that of a focused professionally
designed system and not something gaff-taped together. As a systems
person I undertand that gaff-tape is not to be laughed at (duct-tape is,
however, another matter ;-) But we have to remember that there is a lot
of perception and emotion in all of this, both at the county
administrative level and in the minds of voters.

I addition, it's my sense that bad releases of code can be more than a
little damaging to perceptions. I suspect that Diebold and others are
going to come out of the gate with both guns blazing the first time that
an Open Source voting system has a flaw.

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:01 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT