Thanks, Joe!
There has been wide support for _disclosure_ of source since the first
meeting, and it is part of the only statement we voted on. Surely
that should be in the main presentation. Udall is a co-sponsor of the
bill that would require it.
So I'd put this on an earlier slide:
Full Disclosure of Source Code: HR 2239 - Voter Confidence Act
Co-sponsored by Mark Udall
I would basically make sure they know we think it is important, and
ask for them to more highly rate vendors who agree to do so, even if
it is impractical for a single county to _require_ that of scanner
vendors.
Some people are arguing for open source (which could be reused by
others), so it is good to include that on the "Other Perspectives"
slide. But that is quite different from merely requiring disclosure
of the source code to any citizen, as HR 2239 would mandate.
Note, from what Drew (Secy of State's office) and Al have documented,
CVV's plan does not depend on a waiver/extension being granted. A
waiver/extension could allow use of punch-card machines, but no one is
proposing that for Boulder.
I.e. HAVA itself does not require ADA compliance until 2006.
Al wrote:
> A. Eliminate punch card voting machines. With an approved waiver,
> January 1, 2006 - see 102(a)(3)(B)
> C. Provide private voting for disabled voters. January 1, 2006 or
> January 1, 2007 - see 301(d) and 301(a)(3)(C)
Drew wrote:
> (1.) Your interpretation as to critical dates is correct.
Neal McBurnett http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged. GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60
Attachment:
CVV-BCC-Presentation.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document