Re: From the, "They just don't get it!, " departmentt, Diebold equipment to get certified in CA?

From: Richard C. Johnson <dick_at_iwwco_dot_com>
Date: Tue Jun 14 2005 - 20:42:16 CDT

I am not very much a fan of goodhousekeepingsealofapproval proprietary secret process/results certification. Like the voting software source, testware source should be open. Testware code should be done according to accepted standards, and all test shops should be required to run the open test code (and report the open test code results!!!!) as well as perform whatever value add gets you paid for a nice, embossed certificate. Without meaningful and open test, well, you get what somebody else (Diebold and other vendors) hired done. Certified, my goodness, what a deal. And...I got five stars in kindergarten, too!!!
 
And...running an automated test suite on each new version should not be that hard. Let's just skip the mumbo jumbo and do it right.
 
No OpenTest, no credibility. The OpenTest community, given a machine-independent standard test language, can readily produce the complement to OpenSource software. Any vendor unwilling to see the People's Test run on their voting machine can hardly prevent states and counties from requiring just that in order to submit a bid. And a vendor can readily produce its own machine-specific interface to the standard test code. Not really all that much difference among keyboard machines or among touch screen machines.
 
Software Engineering Rules!
 
Just a thought...
 
-- Dick

Charlie Strauss <cems@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm not a fan of diebold unquestionably shady tactics or of their
empirically sloppy software security. I suspect this is baked into
the company attitude.

That said, if the criteria for certification is objective and the
factors dont include corporate attitude but just a defined set of
performance criteria then it seems like if someone passes a test
after making revisions then they deserve to be certified. If you
dont like the criteria maybe one should change those I guess.

If OVC were to flunk it's first certification test but comeback and
pass we'd like to see it certified not held up of indefinite scrutiny
with no defined resolution process. Seems only fair to offer diebold
a level playing field.

On Jun 14, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:

> On 6/14/05, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>
>> >> 2005_06_01_blogarchive.html#111868176092920804>
>>
>
> Note that the two consultant reports for the TSx set-up are available
> on the [SoS's website]... the first report states that the machine
> shouldn't be used in this configuration with the problems they noted.
> The second notes that these problems were reconciled and recommends
> certification. If this is not how the state certification process
> should work, we should discuss.
>
> [SoS's website]: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm
>
> --
> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
>
> blog:
>
> This email is written in [markdown][]; an easily-readable and
> parseable text format.
> [markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:07 2005

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