Re: Draft of letter to the EAC

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 12:49:17 CDT

Good job Alan. just one comment: Commisioner Soaries Went out of his way at the hearing to make it clear that whatever they did, it would have the utmost sensitivity to the bussiness models of vendors. Would it be reasonsable to mention that opensource will enable a different bussniess model, one where competitors can compete on services rather than machine-based vendor lock in., and one where counties could lease rather than own/store/service machines?

Before we all comment further perhaps you'd like to comment further on the purpose of the letter. Obviously you are not trying to argue the case for open source. Is it to try to get an invitation to testify on open source or on OVC or on something else.

some grammar changes:

certify is spelled wrong.
I've seen the EAC spelled out as "electoral" and "election" assistance commission. I don't know which is correct.

minor tweak:
perhaps "Engineers cannot freely examine" should be "Non-disoclosure agreement prevent the MOST QUALIFIED Engineers from". While the point you make there will be obvious to Soaries, as a general principle think about how it may become a sound bite for the press.

other related topic that souries coupled to Open Source

Soaries is I think tuned into the COTS software substitution problem but It might not be good to assume he undertands the whole issue. I think that the case of the windows OS change that highlighted which button it suggested you press is a beautiful counter example to people who try to say the "secure" parts of applications are isolated from COTS changes. (Was it Doug Jones who mentioned that? I forget who. perhaps someone has a reference.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Dechert <>
Sent: May 10, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: [voting-project] Draft of letter to the EAC

This is a draft of an important statement we need to make. This will be a
letter to the EAC on OVC letterhead with the names of the directors included
along with, perhaps, a few major contributors in the current discussion
(like David Mertz, Charlie Strauss, Laird Popkin, and perhaps others). This
will be followed with a press release.

Dear Commissoners

We are delighted to learn of your interest in open source software. It
makes sense that a public process like voting be best served with public
software. The Open Voting Consortium is the organization most actively
promoting this mode of election administration, and we would be happy to
participate in the next EAC hearing.

Last month we showed our demo voting software to the world. This was
announced in the New York Times, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, San Jose
Mercury News, and many other papers coast-to-coast on April 1st. People
like this sensible idea. After seeing our April 1 demo at the County Court
House in San Jose California, in an April 8 editorial, the San Jose Mercury
News lauded our system as the Holy Grail of voting systems. They followed
this with an editorial (Apr 23) urging our Secretary of State to "replace
your proprietary code with open-source software that voters can trust." At
a minimum, we think that open source public software should be offered as
soon as possible to jurisdictions as an alternative to closed source black
box voting systems.

We have been able to move the project forward with vounteer scientists and
engineers. However, funding will be needed in order to complete and
certifiy the high quality comprehensive software that the United States
voting system deserves. The Open Voting Consortium is working with states
and their public universities to get this project launched. The Open Voting
Consortium is designed as a durable organization that will provide an
on-going structure for maintenance and delivery of the Open Voting system
for many years after the Research and Development has been completed.

As you sort through what this all means, it is important to keep in mind the
various meanings of "open source." Simply publishing the code used in
proprietary systems is not enough. Engineers cannot freely examine and test
proprietary code without risk of being sued. A form of public licensing is
needed so that examiners are free to use the code under a controlled set of

Public licensing of published source code has served the computing world
very well. Most of the software used to bring us the Internet is open
source with public licenses. Apache (web server software) and Linux
(computer operating system) are outstanding examples of such software.
Studies have shown that these software programs are higher quality--better
performance and fewer bugs--than competing closed source proprietary
software. It is no wonder that most of the web servers on the Internet are
running robust applications like Apache along with an open source operating
system like Linux.

Another advantage of our approach is that interoperability will be improved.
As it is, each vendor of proprietary systems also has proprietary file
formats for ballot definition files. Aggregating the vote count is
complicated by the fact that the results are presented in the various
formats vendors have chosen to use. How can we talk about standards in this
regard when the details are trade secrets? The advent of Open Voting will
bring interoperability, simplicity and effiency, as well as openness.

We look forward to increasing the dialog between the Election Assistance
Administration and the Open Voting Consortium.

Alan Dechert
= 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 23:17:30 2004

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