Re: Project Boundaries

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 20:02:16 CDT

Kurt, what format is the document in? If it's just text, merely
include it in a message. Otherwise, put in on a web page to which
you have acccess and email out the URL for people to review it.

It's not clear how volunteers will be used once there are contracts
for software development. Most likely, it will include reviewing
documents and code and providing input and feedback. Less likely
will be software development.

Since the software development effort began last summer, some of the
developers have delivered as promised and some have not. Therefore,
to help ensure that the schedule is met, UC employees and contractors
(and potentially local volunteers assigned to the project by their
employers) will most likely do the software development.

Volunteer software development tasks include completing the demo. In
particular, there is the need to make the BRP more robust.

Best regards,
Arthur

At 11:47 PM +0000 5/13/04, dr-jekyll@att.net wrote:
>Regarding this standardized schema, I have designed one and I'd like
>to post it so we can review it and use that to start designing and
>developing the software. How do I post it?
>
>Also, having experience in Systems Analysis and Design, is there an
>Analysis and Design Team for the software? I'd like to volunteer to
>be on it. I see members from numerous colleges and universities.
>I'm sure there are many programmers who'd help if we only gave them
>some programming specifications.
>
>Kurt
>
>
>
>
>From: Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
>To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] Project Boundaries
>Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:05:17 +0000
>Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
> boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_14705_1084492043_1"
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>At 9:16 PM -0700 5/11/04, Ed Kennedy wrote:
>> Where are the boundaries of the EVM system, especially the Mark
>>I? The current discussion about flat versus more sophisticated
>>data bases brings home to me the importance of where to draw the
>>system boundaries. If the boundaries occur where the ballots, the
>>report, the cd's, the thumb drive, etc. are placed in the ballot
>>box, the box is sealed and the whole thing handed to the election
>>judges, then the flat data base is probably indicated. If the
>>boundaries extend to the other extreme, all the way to the
>>certification of election results by the registrar of voters then
>>we've got the need for a much more sophisticated data base and a
>>much more massive project. I don't think we want to re-engineer
>>what we are referring to as, "Election Central," but the issue
>>does need to be worked through.
>
>I'm not sure what you're referring to as "election central," but
>UCSC intends to build a reference implementation of the canvassing
>system as well. I believe the consensus *has* been worked out.
>
>1. At polling place, no DBMS. Flat files using defined schemas to
>represent a "database" of sorts, though.
>2. At county elections HQ, DBMS with standardized schema compatible
>with flat files at polling places.
>
>Best regards,
>Arthur
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
>tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:41 2004

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