RE: Draft 3 -- EAC Letter

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 12:30:15 CDT

I think that the letter is really shaping up nicely.

A few "polishing" comments:

We should remove the sentence "Since there are many Free Software/Open
Source software licenses,
the specific terms that apply to a particular program must be clearly
stated." as well as the phrase "(under the same open license terms)" as
they're unnecessary complexities that confuse our central point (that open
source is good).

"Studies have shown that these software programs are higher quality, better
performing and have
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."

This should be trimmed down to "Studies have shown that software programs
that are open for peer review are higher quality, better performing and have
fewer bugs than other software." The phrase "peer review" is particularly
important. The last sentence is redundant with the first two sentences in
the same paragraph.

I would reverse the order of these two paragraphs to flow better, as

"The San Jose Mercury News followed their April 8 editorial with another
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."

"Reading or vision impaired voters can vote privately and unassisted, as
with other electronic voting
machines. They can also use a separate independent station that enables them
to hear and validate
their ballot, giving them the same full rights to a voter-verified paper
ballot as sighted voters."

- LP
-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Alan
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] Draft 3 -- EAC Letter

Anyone else? Going once.... going twice....

Alan D.

> On May 11, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > I'm not saying this is done - done. I think this is close, however
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Page 2, second to last paragraph:
> ... the Research and Development ...
> The phrase doesn't need to be capitalized.
> Also, there is a rough transition from a general statement about
> open source, in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, to specifics about the
> OVC in the paragraphs that follow. Most of paragraph 4 is also
> general, but the first sentence "Our approach ..." hints that
> we are talking about ourselves. Change this to:
> Open source voting systems could also allow election systems
> from different vendors to provide compatible output. ...
> Also, don't capitalize Open Voting except when we are referring
> to ourselves.
> The real transition to blowing our own horn begins in the last
> paragraph of page 1. Make this explicit by starting it with:
> Last month, the Open Voting Consortium gave ...
> As it stands, the letter is good enough that I don't object to
> seeing my name on it, but I think these patches would help.
> Doug Jones

= 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 23:17:37 2004

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