Re: Sidelined by discussions -- stop and do the real work
I completely agree with Rebecca.
The real action is in looking at the document.
Also, notwithstanding the note not to comment on 5.2 and 6.2, I'm
working on comments to those sections. We are getting garbage voting
systems because the standard specifies garbage voting systems. If you
read the details, you will discover that they tried to do the testing on
the cheap and cut the requirements accordingly.
However, mere opposition to the standard is utterly meaningless. You
MUST provide the text that fixes the document to your satisfaction, or
your comment and your "No" vote will be disregarded.
That is the process. Get with it. Doing anything else is a complete,
utter, total, and complete waste of time -- both yours and that of
others who could also be working on comments. The time for arguing via
email is during the comment resolution. Without your detailed comments,
you have no basis for further discussion or participation.
Stan Klein
Stan Klein
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 17:55, Cem Kaner 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.
--
Stanley A. Klein <sklein@cpcug.org>