Re: Polling Place conditions, reframing the issue

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 23:08:07 CDT

Arthur,

In some respects I concur that redundancy is good.

Personally though I would draw the redundancy line at a very low level
of hardware, and not at a software level. Software redundancy, when
there is a failure, merely calls into question: Which is the
"authoritative" data source/answer?.

The question of "what is the authoritative data source/answer?" is
something that I think requires a board level decision. Any other
processes or tools must then be seen in the light of
corroborating/validating/auditing what the "official" authoritative
ballot is?.

On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 14:40, Arthur Keller wrote:

>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Redundancy is good. Redundancy is our friend.
> Redundancy is good. Redundancy is our friend.
> Redundancy is good. Redundancy is our friend.
> Redundancy is good. Redundancy is our friend.
> Redundancy is good. Redundancy is our friend.
>
> At some some degree of redundancy is good. ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Arthur

==================================================================
= 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 23:18:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:17 CDT