Constructive Criticism

[Christian Rudolph <reindeer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to personally thank Paul Walmsley for telling me that Boulder
County needed more election judges.  Thanks Paul!


Bo,

You have a very adversarial and angry tone that doesn't fit well
with my experience as a member of CVV, and as an election judge.

You could have asked me for information, instead of assuming.
I would have been more than happy to share my experiences!

I would like you to please take a break from your series of attacks of
Al Kolwitz, and of the members of CVV.
I believe that it is not productive.
It makes people like me want to distance myself.

You are attacking good and well intentioned people who are doing
something about their convictions.

Can you put aside personal attacks?


On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 10:55, Bo wrote:
> There were supposedly over 100 CVV people ready to assist the Clerks office
> with election work.....most notably the hand counting that was demanded.....

To my understanding, the hand counting initiative came from Avi Rubin,
a person that I disagree with on many issues, but not on this one.
For me to be an election judge and then available to hand count is
unreasonable, in that it makes for a very long day.
I got up at 4am Tuesday to be a judge, and didn't get home until
11pm.  I'm not complaining, it was a good experience, however,
had I hand counted also, I would not have slept Tuesday night.
Do you see how it would be hard to do both?
I made a choice as to how I could best be effective.
I think I made a good choice.  Would you agree?

> So, howcome only 4 (that's all *I* heard about) people from CVV showed
> up?????

I don't have any information on that, sorry.
However, I think that you point could have been better received without
the asterisks and the five question marks. :)

Last I knew, Avi Rubin was not even in town to spearhead this effort.
Maybe you can ask him directly, as I believe that this was his idea.

I am one of those who supports hand counts, and believe that hand
counting is a good check and balance when a count is called for,
and when the intent of the voter needs to be determined.

I am a technologist.
I have worked with computing machines since 1981.
I am a software engineer who specializes in writing test software.
Computers are wonderful machines, but they cannot yet make a judgment
call on what the "intent of the voter" constitutes.
That's a high concept that most humans can do easily, but computers
cannot yet do.  Maybe someday they will.

Data can be destroyed or altered.  It's common.
Tests need to be comprehensive and rigorous, and I, for one, support
Al Kolwitz's efforts to test these brand new machines.

You may disagree with how Al did the tests, and with him personally,
but I don't understand criticism of the fact that he got involved,
and tried to "make a difference".
I have had a great deal of experience being attacked personally for
my testing efforts, because I write tests as if I were a user.
This annoys people, because they see it as personal when a bug is found.
This bothers software developers who are intent on preserving their
egos and their reputation.  It's natural to not want to be criticized,
but it's the duty of citizens to do so on such an important issue.

I spoke directly with the lead developer and architect of the 
current Hart system, and he adamantly defended his code.
He said "There's no bugs in my code", 
that people like Bev Harris were not going to stop him,
He also said of Bev Harris "I hate that f*cking b*tch".  
It made me very nervous about quality, to say the least.

Software tests reveal errors and problems early on so that errors 
are caught before a deployment.  Otherwise, the user finds them.
We should test, and test rigorously and repeatedly.
If some issue comes up, we should get the vendor to fix it. 
We have a support contract, according to Linda Salas.  

Maybe I am presumptive, but I believe that we all have the same goal
of having accurate and fair votes, yes?
I think that we should try to work together to get this done, 
and see if we can overcome the resistance to testing of these brand new
untested machines.  They need testing, don't you agree?

I believe that if the County Clerks were confident of a successful
test, then they wouldn't have any problems with a tester putting a
machine through it's paces, as long as no harm would come to the
machines. I honestly don't know all the particulars about the 
situation with the tests with Al, and why he was ejected.

Nothing that I read indicated that Al was conducting
anything like a destructive test, which I would not support.
Am I wrong?  Please correct any assumptions.
Maybe Al has too much history to have the County Clerks accept him
as a tester.  
Here is a proposition:
I would be happy to perform Al's tests, if he is willing,
as I am friendly with Linda Salas, and have met Tom, albeit briefly,
and as far as I know, no one finds me objectionable, at least not yet.

What do you think Al? Tom? Bo?

I am not trying to take anything away from Al's efforts, and I don't
want this suggestion to be construed as such.
I think that if people can accept Al, that he would do a better job,
but I think that there must be other things going on that I am
not aware of.

Al, what do you think?  I certainly am not as knowledgeable about
elections as you are, so I would have to use your test specification.
And I would be happy to work with you and the county to get the
testing done, if it's not too late.

Does this sound reasonable?

Maybe it's the test specification that is being disputed.
I would be happy to go over it with folks to see if there is some
way that tests could be performed.

I could run the test cases that Al has planned, or some agreed upon
test specification that is rigorous and thorough enough.
I would do my level best to be as objective and helpful as I was as an
election judge.  Without a completed set of tests, the voter's
concerns cannot be said to have been addressed.
Several voters asked me to "make sure my vote counts!".

What do you think?  Is this a crazy idea?
It may not be acceptable to everyone, and if Al rejects it I will
immediately abandon the idea, but at least it's constructive,
and testing machines is something that I can do, and do well.
Who knows, maybe the machine will pass?


> 
> Where was Joe Pezzillo??
> Where was Ralph Shnelvar???
> Even Al K. could have been there as a poll watcher or election judge.....if
> he *really* wanted to.

These people who you call out have done far more than I have,
and I for one admire and respect them for their tireless work.
They have done more for the citizens of Boulder County than 
one could reasonably expect.
I wanted to be a supply judge so that I could learn about the whole
process.  I was glad that I did it.  I learned a great deal.
Two other members of CVV were judges at the training that I attended
last Thursday.  I will let Pete and Neil speak for themselves.
I learned that Neil has been an election judge in the past, and I
know that others have as well.

There was, to my knowledge, at least one other training, so there 
may be more people from CVV.  I don't know.

I did not have any poll watchers at my precinct, from CVV or
otherwise.  I would have welcomed them, especially from CVV,
and was in fact a bit disappointed that there were none.
Again, I think that many others in the group have done far more
than I, and to expect them to do everything is unreasonable,
in my opinion.  It's not that big a group!


> 
> Is all these people do is complain and don't do anything about it?

You see complaints.  
I see constructive criticism.
With such an important issue at stake, and much passion, I believe
that disagreements are inevitable.
With all due respect to you Bo, the assertion that people
"don't do anything" is now plainly false and deliberately misleading.
I wish you would just let go of this idea entirely.  
It's an angry rant. It doesn't fit the facts.  It's not a motivator.

> I don't see how these people can criticize and then refuse to be part of the
> process, where they can actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

What difference would you suggest is better for "these people"? :)
I am part of the process, am I not?
I am open to criticism as long as it's based in fact.
Shouting in all caps will only push people out of the process.
Is that what you intend?
These attacks are not persuasive, and I didn't get involved because
of angry attacks.  Quite the opposite.

I got involved because I met Joe Pezzillo, and Paul Walmsley, and
they and others convinced me that together we could possibly 
do something to make the voting process more secure and 
fair and verifiable.
I also met Al, and I found him to be thoughtful, articulate, and
outspoken, and I admired his tenacity and passion.
Al is very smart, and he knows what he's talking about.

I became less involved because of a contentious man named Avi Rubin,
who got right up in my face at the end of each and every CVV meeting,
spoke in a loud and angry voice, and made the same kind of 
personal attacks that I see on this list lately.
Avi said that I was "stupid" to trust the county, and to
trust machines.  I disagreed with him on many points.
He refused to accept the idea that computers could ever be used
to accurately count ballots.
I say that computers are good at counting, but verification must
be done by humans, and a verification process is not in place yet.
These machines need to be tested by a trustworthy and public group
which _must_ include citizens.
He said that hand counts were the only way.  I disagreed.
He did his best to attack me personally, and piss me off, 
and eventually, I realized that he wanted to control the group,
and make it his own. My experience with Avi was not unique.
I decided that I was not up to hearing an angry rant from Avi.
When I saw that he had moved away, I became more involved again,
in my own way.  I believe that even though my contribution is small,
that I am doing something to make a difference.
I don't work well when people are shouting at me though.
It's not reasonable to expect that of anyone, in my opinion.

> *Not* interfere and make a shambles of a process that is already in place,
> whether it has flaws or not......but actually be a *part* of the process and
> be able to point out CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms, in a civilized manner.

In your mind, does the process include testing or not?
I would like to respectfully see proof of the accusation that anyone
from CVV has, in fact, "interfered with an election official in the 
conduct of their duties".  I will believe it if I can see proof.
If no proof is offered, then I remain skeptical, since the county
seems reluctant to press the case in court, and to my knowledge,
no charges have been filed.  Did I miss something?
>From what I read in the Camera, Al was removed because of a disagreement
over how to conduct tests.  Is that considered a crime?
If Al is taken into custody, and convicted of his alleged crime,
then I will believe it.  In the meantime, I would like the accusations
to stop until solid proof is shown, and government actions to prevent
the alleged crime are undertaken.
Trashing a man's reputation does not make an allegation stick in my
view, and in fact, often points to another agenda.

I don't see a process in shambles.  I also do not see a fully tested
vote tabulating machine.  Maybe you know something that I don't.
I thought that I was part of the process.  Am I not?

I thought that testing a vote tabulating machine was a constructive
action.  Last I knew the machine was still operational.  Am I wrong?
Is it unusable now?  Has someone been harmed or been prevented from
their election work?  I am seriously and honestly curious.

Do you feel that you are being constructive, shouting in all caps?
Attacking someone's character or the motives of an entire group?
Do you feel that this is "civilized"?
What were your constructive suggestion for CVV?  
I think I missed it, and I read the CVV list, but I do miss things
sometimes.

I hope that we can all move past being angry and work together.
I see us as having a common goal.
I would like to work toward that.
The voters expressed genuine concern over this issue.
I don't want to let them down.



-Christian Rudolph
Election & Supply Judge for precinct 4181107001
Fire House #5, Barberry road, Longmont