Re: Sidelined by discussions -- stop and do the real work

[Barbara Simons <simons@xxxxxxx>]

I also hope that voting members of the committee will read the email dialog,
because we have been discussing some important fundamental issues.  I can't
comment on Vern's openness to arguments, but I certainly hope that the
majority of the people who will be voting on the standards are interested in
high level issues such as security, reliability, transparency, and the
ability to conduct a meaningful recount.

And I agree with Rebecca's and Whitney's comments that we need to do the
hard work of reading the document and thinking about its implications for
our democracy.

Regards,
Barbara

On 12/12/04 14:55, "Cem Kaner" <kaner@KANER.COM> wrote:

> For some of us, the email thread is the main line, not the sideline.
>
> If we don't have a strong form of vote verification, as a core
> requirement, nothing else in this standard will persuade me to vote for
> it and I will publicly oppose it and encourage everyone I know to
> oppose it.
>
> Alternatively, if the standard does require vote verification, I am
> likely to be much more forgiving of the other details.
>
> -- Cem Kaner
>
> On Dec 12, 2004, at 4:02 PM, R. Mercuri wrote:
>
>> Folks --
>>
>> I am going through my inbox here and find it deluged with
>> banter from the P1583 working group members.  Some of us
>> were beginning to believe that the barbed comments and
>> ridiculous arguments that surface from time to time are
>> INTENDED to waste time and divert attention from the
>> review of the current draft.  I believe that this current
>> spate is evidence of that.
>>
>> We have now a VERY IMPORTANT draft that is going to be
>> delivered (with or without YOUR comments) to the EAC on
>> December 21.  My suggestion is that EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY
>> THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT VERIFIED VOTING, stop wasting
>> time on email and sit down and spend the next week going
>> through the draft VERY CLOSELY.  The draft includes new material
>> that was NOT entered through consensus work.  The draft excludes
>> consensus opinions that WERE supposed to be in it.  The draft
>> currently could be viewed a roadmap to the backdoors to subvert
>> the election equipment, because the security material continues
>> to be sorely lacking, inadequate, or rendered utterly ineffective.
>>
>> You all have a choice -- you can allow yourselves to be baited
>> into ridiculous and rude discussions over email, or you can
>> write strong and detailed sets of comments that will be provided
>> to the EAC along with the P1583 draft that can explain to them
>> how wrongheaded various sections of the draft unfortunately still
>> are.  I can tell you that those of you do NOT read the ENTIRE
>> document and submit salient comments and who instead choose to
>> spend one more minute of anyone's time sending email about their
>> opinions will be making a MAJOR MISTAKE.
>>
>> No matter how important you think this email discussion is,
>> it is a WASTE OF TIME.  I believe that some of the P1583 members
>> are hoping you will choose to continue to do that.  I am hoping
>> you will NOT, and that you will do the REAL WORK that will have
>> an impact on both the draft and the EAC/TGDC.  Please DROP the emails
>> AT ONCE and GET TO WORK on reading and writing comments on the draft.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Rebecca Mercuri.
>>
>>
> Cem Kaner, Professor of Software Engineering
> Director, Center for Software Testing Education & Research
> Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Blvd., Melbourne,
> FL 32901.
> http://www.kaner.com, http://www.testingeducation.org,
> http://www.badsoftware.com
> Senior author of
>       Lessons Learned in Software Testing
>       Testing Computer Software, and
>       Bad Software: What to Do When Software Fails.