Re: I "really" need your help with "public disclosure" legislative suggestion

From: Richard Dawson <rcdawson_at_att_dot_net>
Date: Mon Nov 27 2006 - 22:03:27 CST

The discussion did seem to drift away from your question. I think you asked
what public disclosure might involve, and the discussion has drifted to what
can one do to ensure that the code being run is the code that is supposed to
be run, whether or not publicly disclosed.

I agree with the earlier comment that open source is preferable to simply
publicly disclosed. In California, however, it seemed most reasonable to go
with the relatively non-controversial public disclosure, and forego into the
full benefit of open source (freedom from reliance on supplier of proprietary
software for correction of errors, etc.) in favor of getting at least public
disclosure in place.

I would prefer that a recommendation of public disclosure with that being
defined more-or-less as it was defined in AB2097 (see earlier post). I would
not include the repository in the same point with public disclosure. If a
repository is good, it would be equally good for proprietary software. The
repository (and I'm not entirely convinced it is desirable) should be a
separate point, lest the concept of public disclosure come to be regarded as
dependent upon a federal repository -- or vice-versa for that matter.

Richard Dawson
On Monday 27 November 2006 5:24 pm, Kathy Dopp wrote:
> On 11/27/06, ovc-discuss-request@listman.sonic.net
>
> OK. What I'm getting (through my haze) is that requiring public
> disclosure or open source is not going to work yet until the federal
> voluntary voting system guidelines are upgraded by the US EAC TGDC at
> the same time?
>
> So (yes/no answers please) should I:
>
> 1. require public disclosure plus a federal repository where source
> code and hashes, configurations, etc. are stored, or
>
> 2. (and I prefer this one for now at least) simply not recommend
> public disclosure or open source in our current proposals and let
> someone else handle that later who can finesse their way through the
> complexities far better than I?
>
> So Please then, tell me a list of all the degreed fields that would be
> appropriate to require for membership on the TGDC because I am
> determined to increase the academic requirements to remove the current
> persons with degrees in hotel management and political science who do
> not belong on that committee simply because they've had years
> experience implementing shoddy voting equipment.
>
> What degrees in what fields specifically should be required to be on
> the technical guidelines development committee?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kathy
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Nov 30 23:17:14 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 23:17:19 CST