Re: Strategic plan revised

From: laird popkin <lairdp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Fri Mar 11 2005 - 14:47:46 CST

Comments:
- The first time HAVA is mentioned, it should be written out. "We know
there is money available allocated by the Help America Vote Act to
fund such an effort"
- Similarly "UC proposal to CA SoS" is mildly cryptic, and should be
written out. "the University of Calofornia proposal to the California
Secratary of Statae to fund OVC development".
- When we mention that "we did demonstrate that our message can
attract many small donations." we should in particular describe the
fact that we now have a significant number of supporters making
regular, monthly automatic contributions, which provides OVC with a
predictable stream of funding."
- "While some have expressed skepticism that OVC can do well with
grassroots organizing, we think we can do it. " seems defensive. How
about "OVC is starting to demonstrate success with grassroots
organizing."
- "There is widespread support for open voting: The people want open
voting." is repetitive. "There is widespread support for open voting."
is more clear, IMO.
- In the techniques and goals, there's no mention of grassroots fund
raising. We should list increasing grassroots recruiting efforts as a
technique, and have specific goals for number of meetups and
membership levels. They're implied later in the revenue table at the
end, but should be made explicit.
- "Build at least one voting application, perhaps a tabulator or audit
tool, and get it certified" should be shortened to "Build at least one
voting application and get it certified"
- We should explain why "these two companies might be
tough to sell on the idea right now,"
- The discussion of Accupoll is a little unclear (to me). Do we mean
to say that if OVC is successful in getting the CA SoS to adopt a
definition of voting that allows for OVC's system, it would also
permit Accupoll to sell to CA?
- In terms of becoming an open standard, as opposed to a software
project, I wonder if we should attempt to associated the OVC/OVF with
a standards organization such as Oasis, IETF, W3C, IDEAlliance, etc.?
Which one would depend on what we're trying to standardize and why.
- What are ROV's?
- I don't understand why the first paragraph of the Summary is there.
It's interesting info, but should be in the body of the document,
since it's not a summary of anything. (IMO, of course).
- "We can't be overly concerned about deadlines." sound cavelier. I
understand the point, but perhaps it could be stated more moderately.
- The budget looks pretty aggressive to me. While that's a possible
outcome, we need to also present a more conservative budget, and make
clear that the OVC/OVF spending will never exceed income.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:21:09 -0800, Alan Dechert <dechert@gmail.com> wrote:
> I made a few revisions based on comments -- reorganized with a few
> refinements and additions. I kept it to 6 pages. Obviously, the
> business plan is much longer and we'll be looking for help with that
> too.
>
> http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ad/ovc-strategic-plan31.pdf
>
> Alan D.
>
>

-- 
- Laird Popkin, cell: 917/453-0700
_______________________________________________
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 Mar 31 23:17:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2005 - 23:17:09 CST