Re: Executive Summary of Proposal to California Secretary of State

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Jun 10 2005 - 01:39:37 CDT

At 12:54 PM -0700 6/9/05, Ron Crane wrote:
>On Jun 9, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Arthur Keller wrote:
>
>>For your information.
>
>Some comments.
>
>1. The document does not explain the purpose of the phases, nor
>their timing. Does the "ready for 6/2006 elections" proposal include
>both phases, or only phase 1?

Only phase 1.

>2. The document doesn't make it clear how the phase 2
>"precinct-based optical scan ballot reader/tabulation system"
>differs from the similar phase 1 component. You need to explain that
>the phase 1 component is intended to be centralized at one county
>office, and that election workers will feed it ballots, whereas the
>phase 2 component is supposed to be fed ballots directly by voters.

OK, I'll add some clarification.

>3. Accessibility of the phase 2 ballot reader isn't addressed.

Accessibility is in ballot marking, not ballot reading. Ballots are
marked for both phases either by hand or through an AutoMark-type
system.

>4. Page 2's description of what open source means is confusing. The
>sentence "Because UCTS consists of open source software, anyone -
>third parties or voters - who might be suspicious of tampering are
>able to independently validate ballots and vote tallies" seems like
>a non-sequitur. Open source (with appropriate crypto wrappers and
>procedures) enables people to obtain significant assurance of
>software integrity. It doesn't (directly) permit validation of
>"ballots and vote tallies".

I'll fix that on the next pass.

>5. The description of the migration path is a little indefinite. It
>should directly say that UCTS will support scanning Diebold/ES&S
>op-scan paper ballots and Automark-generated ballots.

AutoMark doesn't generate ballots. It marks ballots in the ES&S format.

>6. You need very briefly to describe how all the components will
>work together with, for example, Diebold paper or Automark.

This is an executive summary. Not everything needs to be explained,.

>7. "Something like a CD-R" (p.4) is too indefinite for use in this
>kind of document.

That's the kind of thing that gets explained in the full proposal,
not in the executive summary.

>Thanks for all the work!
>
>-R

You're welcome

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 Thu Jun 30 23:17:05 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 23:17:11 CDT