Re: Summary paper ballot

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 04:14:32 CDT

James, our mailing lists are publicly accessible. Our deliberations
on this list are not in private. However, there is a difference
between discussions, a concensus reached in discussions, and the
official policy of the OVC.

Best regards,
Arthur

At 1:51 AM -0400 6/28/04, james_in_denver wrote:
>I am not a lawyer, though I am hopeful that others working on this
>effort are either in consultation with legal counsel, or at least know
>someone more versed in the law.
>
>I would strongly encourage that this topic be reviewed by legal counsel
>before releasing diagrams, models, flowcharts, or statements, to any
>outside individual or organization. This is a pretty fundamental issue
>to the entire OVC project. This decision will drive several design,
>functionality, and implementation, features down the road.
>
>I have strong feelings on this topic for the "human readable" printed
>text being the "official" ballot, Everything else merely adds
>audit/tabulation functionality. When push comes to shove in a recount or
>courtroom, only one of my previously three mentioned options CAN be
>considered as the indication of voters' intentions. Better to choose
>that now, than have someone else interpret or decide for us.
>
>James Acomb
>
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jun 30 23:17:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:30 CDT