Re: Ms. Tobi's overheated rhetoric

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Sat Nov 03 2007 - 19:27:28 CDT

Thanks, Alan, for the clarification. I have no involvement with
ACCURATE, so I can't comment on your last point.

Alan Dechert wrote:
> Barbara, first thing last ... this is a public forum. The archives are on
> the Internet for anyone to see. This has been the case since day one of
> this list ... started more than four years ago
> I don't believe there is any need for any permission to forward anything
> here.
> I would like to clarify what Brent said. I believe Brent is trying to tell
> it as best as he remembers, but I have a couple of other things to say about
> it.
> At least one thing, I believe, is factually wrong. He says, "She then
> pointed out that Accurate had cited OVC in their requests for the dough...."
> I don't believe she said that. I said that.
> The meeting was in early April. Here is a post I made about that dated APR
> 13.
> This was after the HR 811 was introduced, but before the revision, which
> came out on JUL 27.
> Here is my recollection of what Congresswoman Lofgren said in relative to
> these issues.
> 1) On MSFT's role
> -------------------------------
> She said that the language for code disclosure was being changed to suit
> Microsoft. She said they had to do this to keep MSFT from killing the bill,
> and she also mentioned something about the money that was involved --
> contributions at risk. I believe she mentioned the specific committee or
> group that would be denied money, but I think she did name the committee or
> group. I don't remember the name.
> 2) About ACCURATE
> ------------------------------
> Congresswoman Lofgren stated that they weren't considering putting money in
> the bill for open source software development for new voting systems because
> the federal government already was funding that through ACCURATE.
> I replied that ACCURATE was not developing an open source voting system, and
> that such an undertaking was not part of their charter. I told her I was
> familar with the ACCURATE proposal, which the National Science Foundation
> had funded, and that OVC was supposed to have some role in that project. I
> explained that perhaps some people got the impression that open source
> software development for new voting systems might be a part of that because
> there is discussion of how they plan to work with OVC. I told her that
> ACCURATE was NOT working with OVC and had not worked with OVC on anything
> despite requests from me that they do so.
> My conclusions
> -----------------------
> It seemed to me that Congresswoman Lofgren was interested in meeting with us
> in effort to get us on board with HR 811. We were meeting with her because
> I wanted to see money put in HR 811 (or some other bill) for voting
> technology development that would be freely available (with free license
> like BSD, but preferably GPL).
> Brent inferred that she was saying MSFT and ACCURATE are our enemies --
> Congress is listening to them, not us. I don't believe she used the word
> "enemy" or "enemies." I think it's not unreasonable to feel she was saying
> MSFT and ACCURATE are kicking OVC's ass -- thus, Brent's "enemies"
> characterization.
> It's Microsoft's right to lobby all they want. However, there are laws
> about what's proper/improper when it comes to giving money. The Federal
> RICO laws may come into play.
> As for references to OVC in the ACCURATE proposal, see sec 3.3 on
> "technology transfer." OVC is also supposed to have an advisory board
> position. I have never been contacted about that.
> Alan D.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barbara Simons" <>
> To: <>; "Open Voting Consortium discussion
> list" <>
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Ms. Tobi's overheated rhetoric
> Hi, Brent. Our emails crossed, so please ignore my request for a
> reference, since clearly there is none.
> You said that Lofgren said that "there was two enemies to the open
> voting movement - Microsoft and Accurate." Did she actually say that
> ACCURATE was an "enemy" of the open voting movement? Did she put
> ACCURATE in the same equivalence class as Microsoft?
> I'd like your permission to forward your response to a member of
> Lofgren's staff.
> Regards,
> Barbara
> Brent Turner wrote:
>> It was verbal- Alan D and I were both there- She said that Capitol
>> Hill was under the impression Accurate was working towards an open
>> source system
>> She then pointed out that Accurate had cited OVC in their requests for
>> the dough- and thought the two were working together- BT
OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:09 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST