Re: OVC Architecture Decision Tree

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Wed Jun 30 2004 - 11:58:32 CDT


> Well, once you drill down, you can't, e.g., have a barcode
> without paper. ....
And a choice of 1-D or 2-D barcode doesn't come up until you choose to have
a barcode. And there are decisions to make regarding the barcode
(placement, what to encode, etc.)

> But for the most part, each large element is independent
> in motivation.
I don't see the decision tree reflecting "motivation" or even the order of
decisions. For example, I think it would now make sense to show the 1-D v
2-D decision for the barcode. Originally, the barcode was included because
one of the ROV staffers said, "put a barcode on there." I didn't consider
the 1-D or 2-D question for the demo. I looked at how much data I needed to
encode and I found one of several schemes (Code 128) that I felt would work
best (and found GPL software for). I never seriously considered 2-D (even
though Ed suggested it back then).

I think the decision tree could show how the decisions logically fit
together, even though the exact order may be somewhat fictional. For
example, I always thought of a ballot system--a non-ballot system didn't
occur to me until long after I came up with paper ballot with matching EBI
scheme. So, if we want to show the non-ballot option (because it can be
done that way and has been done that way) we would want to show the logical
position of that decision, not necessarily where the decision was actually
taken as an historical sequence.

Alan D.
= 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 23:17:28 2004

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