Testing (was Re: Fwd: Jurisdictional focus)

From: Edward Cherlin <edward_dot_cherlin_at_etssg_dot_com>
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 22:22:47 CDT

On Wednesday 28 April 2004 21:30, Ed Kennedy wrote:
> Hello Arthur:
> I do have another idea. Pick a California college town
> and ask them if they think that we could set up a parallel
> system at some polling place(s). Once people have voted, ask
> them if they could test the new system. Have the same ballot
> as the DRE's. It could be useful for the human engineering
> tests that seem to be needed and probably adequate for a
> pilot. It also could be a nice little bit of publicity. I'm
> suggesting a college town because they'd possibly be more open
> to such a thing and have a little more time than most of us
> working stiffs.

It doesn't have to be a governmental election. We might be able
to run tests at NGOs, schools, labor unions...There are also
mock elections here and there. We could set up polls at
appropriate conferences for the attendees.

> Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arthur Keller" <arthur@kellers.org>
> To: <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
> Cc: <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [voting-project] Fwd: Jurisdictional focus
>
> > I was toying with the idea of doing a full court press for
> > pilot use this fall. However, the risk of failure is too
> > great and the spotlight will be very bright. Risk
> > management dictates that we had better do it right than
> > quickly. We may want to do pilot use of an incomplete
> > system for the primary elections in California in spring
> > 2005. However, it is unlikely that our pilot system could
> > be certified, and that itself could be a bar to pilot use.
> >
> > My goals for the California project, where I would be
> > Principal Investigator, is to produce a complete software
> > system by June 2005. Get it certified and use it in pilots
> > in fall 2005. Iterate and improve it (getting it certified
> > *again*) for use it in larger pilots in spring 2006.
> > General availability for fall 2006. We would then evaluate
> > the system, make one last pass of improvements (getting it
> > certified *again*) for spring 2007. The R & D contract
> > would end at the end of the summer of 2007. Note that UC
> > would not be the entity that arranges for certification, but
> > it could be the OVC that arranges for it. The statement of
> > work for UC will include assisting that entity. (Because I
> > have a conflict of interest, it will be someone else at UCSC
> > who decides whether the OVC will be the subcontractor on the
> > project and how much the subcontract is for.)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Arthur
> >
> > At 8:02 AM -0700 4/28/04, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
> > >Hello Dave:
> > >
> > > I'm just trying to stimulate discussion, not
> > >start a civil war. I've already conceded in advance
> > >that this is a somewhat 'provincial' proposal. If
> > >Texas, Illinois, Massachusetts or Baja-Norte, Mexico,
> > >feels that it can rapidly mobilize for at least a 3
> > >polling place pilot test, more power to them! Again,
> > >I strongly feel that there absolutely needs to be some
> > >sort of goals and some sort of schedule to focus
> > >efforts.
> > >
> > >Thanks, Ed Kennedy
> >
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >--------------
>
> -----
>
> > Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA
> > 94303-4507 tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424

-- 
Edward Cherlin, Simputer Evangelist
Encore Technologies (S) Pte. Ltd.
New voices in the global conversation
http://www.ryze.com/go/Cherlin
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:25 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT