RE: Draft 2 -- letter to EAC commissioners

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 21:56:52 CDT

I have to disagree with poplin laird. The bit about liscencing is a key issue with open source. Raising it further demonstrates why OVC expertises and why OVC should be invited to the table.

I also see that alan took my suggestion about mentioning fostering a new bussiness model. The sentence mentioning it is a tad abrupt and may not flow well enough to be of use.

 my sense is that the purpose of this letter is to get OVC invited to say much more, maybe even appear before the committee, and the way to do that might be to stay on topic (open source) but show that you are very savy by raising these subtle issues like you have . e.g. not all open source lic the same, enabling new bussiness models.

I suspect that avoiding shamelessly plugging the system itself is a good thing. But you did manage to cleverly introduce the ide that handicapped persons will be able to verify their vote. That's good because it again it will mildly surpriseing: it shows an OVC strength in being able to do something that the head of the NASED testifies was an inherent problem problem with paper.

good letter.
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:33 2004

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