Re: Judy's memo to the P1583 WG
Dear Whitney, Judy, and everyone else,
Let me begin by saying that I have no problem with releasing Sections 5.3
and 6.3 on Usability and Accessibility. I agree that these sections have
generated relatively few comments and seem to be close to consensus
positions - if not there already.
While it's true that there was some discussion of releasing the entire draft
standard, a number of us have been strongly opposed to releasing the
sections relating to security of voting machines. I understand that the
TGDC and EAC were made aware of the vast number of comments relating to the
draft standards, but my fear has been that the TGDC might not read the
comments and instead assume that there is far more consensus on the entire
draft than in fact there is.
So, if all that we are discussing is releasing Sections 5.3, 6.3, and
perhaps some related sections that are relatively uncontroversial (this was
not obvious from the letter we were sent), I withdraw my objections.
But I still believe that the material that is released must be made public.
We are talking about setting policy on voting. The public has the right to
see the material that is being considered, even if the entire P1583 were to
strongly support it.
Regards,
Barbara
On 1/25/05 18:02, "Whitney Quesenbery" <whitneyq@wqusability.com> wrote:
>
> It has been my understanding, since beginning work on this Working Group,
> that one of the goals was to deliver a standard to the EAC to consider in
> its work of setting federal voting system standards.
>
> At the August meeting, we discussed this issue in detail. At that time, we
> asked whether the EAC would consider reviewing a draft standard that had
> not yet been balloted. The answer from TGDC counsel - as I recall it - was
> that it would, but that how it was read would depend on the level of
> confidence in the material.
>
> At that time, we also discussed attempting to segment some of the more
> stable sections of the draft, notably usability and accessibility, so that
> they could be balloted separately. This is apparently a procedurally
> complex process, and the group decided to attempt to create a complete
> draft that could be balloted, with the possibility of segmentation held as
> Plan B.
>
> Since then, we have had three rounds of assembly of the complete document,
> and submission of comments. It remains (to me, at least) clear that the
> controversial sections of the standard are no less so. Others - including
> 5.3 and 6.3 on Usability and Accessibility - generate few comments and
> could be said to have a high degree of confidence.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the entire Working Group was
> not consulted. In one of our recent phone meetings, we discussed and/or
> made a decision to release a complete draft to the TGDC, along with the
> comments spreadsheet.
>
> I am not sure what you mean when you say that the TGDC is creating "stealth
> policy." All committee and subcommittee meetings are open to the public and
> web archived, or are made public through posting recordings of phone
> meetings on the vote.nist.gov web site. Furthermore, the TGDC is an
> advisory committee, which does not set policy. The work of the TGDC will
> be presented to the EAC, which will then hold public hearings before
> deciding whether to accept, modify, or reject the recommendations.
>
> I understand the IEEE's reluctance to release any incomplete standard. This
> is "normal operating process" for a voluntary consensus standard. But this
> is an uncommon situation, with both political and time pressures.
>
> I urged Ms. Gorman to make it possible for the TGDC to use the draft
> version of at least the usability and accessibility sections in the work of
> P1583. Much of text in those sections is derived from the ADA Accessibility
> Guidelines (the ADAAG), and it would be a shame to have to redo the work
> adapting them for the voting context. Other parts of those sections will
> likely be adapted as the TDGC does its work. Some work, such as the new
> concepts for evaluating contrast and audio quality, were created as part of
> the work of TG3. Again, it would be a shame for this work not to be
> available, given the large amount of voluntary effort put into it, and for
> IEEE not to get the credit as the organization under which this work was done.
>
> I am pleased that the IEEE Standards Association made the decision to make
> portions of the draft available to the TGDC.
>
> Whitney Quesenbery