RE: [election-services-comment] PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS DISPOSITION

Although I haven’t had replies from everyone we do have a
majority in favour of agreeing my recommendations, so I intend to proceed to
ask TC Admin to run the ballot for Committee Specification approval.

 

John

 

From: John Borras
[mailto:] 

Sent: 29 July 2010 14:49

To: 'EML TC'

Subject: RE: [election-services-comment] PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS
DISPOSITION

 

Attached are my Recommendations on the disposition of the latest
comments.  Can I have you agreement or alternative suggestions
please.   A positive response rather than agreement by silence would
be appreciated please …-)

 

I should point out that Neal McBurnett, the originator of these
comments, is in the process of joining OASIS and the TC so we should look
forward to a full discussion with him about all this in the near future. 
But at this stage the priority has to be to get this version of v6.0 agreed and
approved to serve the needs of EAC/NIST/IEEE P1622.  Delaying it further
whilst we have an in-depth analysis of auditing requirements et al is not, IMO,
a wise move.  We can use Neal’s expertise in that area to do a thorough job
over the coming months.

 

John

 

From: John Borras
[mailto:] 

Sent: 29 July 2010 13:36

To: 'EML TC'

Subject: RE: [election-services-comment] Today's call - CANCELLED

 

Only having had a reply from Sven, I can only assume the rest of
 you are either on holiday, or are otherwise engaged, or are …….  

 

Whatever the reason it’s clear that today’s call has to be
cancelled.   And with holiday season fast approaching the chances of
finding a new date convenient to all for a call look slim.  So let’s try and
clear these review by email, and ballot if necessary, please.  I’ll send
out shortly a revised Disposition document with my Recommendations for your
agreement or otherwise.

 

John

 

From: John Borras
[mailto:] 

Sent: 29 July 2010 08:28

To: 'EML TC'

Subject: RE: [election-services-comment] Today's call

Importance: High

 

Has anyone got a teleconference number we can use for today’s
call , if not can we all manage with Skype?

 

John

 

From: John Borras
[mailto:] 

Sent: 27 July 2010 10:47

To: 'EML TC'

Subject: RE: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Disposition

 

To help focus our minds on these comments, I’ve prepared the
attached Disposition file and captured David’s comments below and inserted my
views.  If you have time before the call on Thursday please add your
comments and re-circulate.

 

John

 

From: John Borras
[mailto:] 

Sent: 26 July 2010 10:07

To: 'EML TC'

Subject: FW: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Support for
interoperable auditing still lacking

 

Hi All

 

The comments from Neal McBurnett below are the only ones
received during this 15 day Public Review so now we have to decide how to
respond to them.  Just to remind you of the process:

 

-         
Comments can only be accepted against the changes made in this
published version, ie comments made against other parts of the Spec are not
acceptable.

-         
The TC does not have to accept all comments, it has the right to
reject them if they so wish.

-         
If any substantive changes are made as a result of the comments
then the TC has to go round the loop again of approving a new version as a
Committee Draft and then publishing it for a new 15 day Public Review. 
This loop is repeated until all comments have been satisfactorily incorporated
or dismissed.

 

I don’t really want to hide
behind procedures to avoid any of them because they could be seen to be new
changes rather than variations on the same theme.   David’s response
below suggest some/most of these are local profile issues rather than
mainstream EML ones and that may be a correct interpretation.  However
let’s not forget that we have accepted that there is a need for major upgrade
to include audit requirements and we would do that for the next release, so an
answer at this stage could be to defer some/all of these comments until
then.  Also note that any requests for example programs and interop tests
are outside of the scope of v6.0 .

 

I suggest therefore we go
ahead with our TC call on Thursday to review these comments and decide how we
wish to respond to each of them.  Can someone provide a conference call
number please?   Just to remind you we have set the call for 14.30
CET/13.30 UK/8.30 EST (sorry Joe!).

 

John

 

From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:] 

Sent: 25 July 2010 04:46

To: Neal McBurnett

Cc: 

Subject: RE: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Support for
interoperable auditing still lacking

 

Neal,

 

EML 530 is completely customizable with type code values
of your own choosing.  I suspect what you desire can be provided
as "profiles" of prescribed code types.

 

This would follow the same notes you make below for the 520.
 Since these are all external to the schema - this would be covered by a
USA localization guidelines for implementers.

 

Per comment 1) - the use you are suggesting is also such a
guideline - I'm not sure the XML element needs to be renamed as such.

 

Per comment 2) - alternate name for candidates - I believe this is
already there - the name element type can be set to "Alternate" - in
xNL type.

 

Similarly comments 3 thru 5
also constitutes localization guidelines.   I believe this is
what we are seeing the P1622 will move to publish in coordination with NIST and
OASIS.

 

I would suggest we can simply begin drafting an initial "how
to" document along those lines.

 

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message
--------

Subject: [election-services-comment] EMLv6-PR2 comments: Support for

interoperable auditing still lacking

From: Neal McBurnett <>

Date: Sat, July 24, 2010 10:34 pm

To: 

Thank you for your attention to my comments on the first public
draft of EMLv6:

 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services-comment/200912/msg00002.html

 

Here are some followup comments.  I've used a narrative style
here to provide background and context, but have also listed along the way a
number of specific comments which I'd like to see addressed.

 

The following summary of the
January election-services WG meeting responds to each comment submitted for the
public review of the first public draft of EMLv6:

 http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services/201001/msg00018.html

There is one row which combines
many of my main previous comments together, with this TC disposition:

> Defer to next release in the main, but could do some small changes

> now.  Review off line some 530 changes may be possible

In the EML PR2 draft, I don't see any changes in 530.  I see
one helpful change in 510: the addition of a "ReportType" string
field which can be used to record the type of ballots included in a given audit
unit - e.g. to differentiate between "absentee",
"in-precinct", "early vote", "mixed", etc.
 Thank you!

 

The "LocalName" field was also added to the core for
contests, presumably in response to my request for both standard names and
local names.  I have two follow-on comments:

 

Comment 1) I suggest renaming LocalName to
"AlternateName", since the "ContestName" would normally
serve as the "local" name, to be used in the actual ballot materials
and traditional reports.

 

Comment 2) There also needs to be an AlternateName for candidates,
as noted at the NIST meeting on standard data formats.

 

To motivate the rest of my comments, I cite the American
Statistical Association statement endorsing Risk Limiting Audits:

 

 http://www.amstat.org/outreach/pdfs/Risk-Limiting_Endorsement.pdf

 

I think it is clear that risk-limiting post-election vote
tabulation audits are one of the best ways to improve confidence in election
results via independently gathered hand-count evidence.  But the timelines
to do post-election audits are stringent and the data processing needs are
challenging.  The data needs to be gathered and aggregated from counties using
different election management systems.  Audit units need to be selected
and hand counted, and results need to be compared and analyzed, potentially
leading to more hand counts.

 

Unless the exact format for these reports is specified, including
field names etc, with enough details present for interoperability testing
and use by automated tools, EML will not meet the test of being an
"interoperable" standard, as described at the NIST meeting.  It
would only be suitable as a basis for "integration", thus losing much
of its potential.

 

Two initial drivers for EML were identified at the NIST data
format standard meeting, and one was auditing.

 

So I still think users of EMLv6 would benefit greatly from a few
new standard elements to support post election tabulation audits.

Comment 3) Standardize the EML 510 data elements needed for auditing

 Inside <Contest><ReportingUnitVotes>

 a) Type of ballots ("absentee", "in-precinct",
"early vote", "mixed", etc) (using the new ReportType
element)

 b) Number of ballots

 c) Number of ballots on which this contest appeared

 Inside <Contest><TotalVotes>

 a) Total number of ballots

 b) Total number of ballots on which this contest appeared

 c) Number of distinct ReportingUnits reported here

Comment 4)  Provide a simple official example program (in XSLT or some
other

 language) to aggregate EML 510 from multiple jurisdictions into a

 single comprehensive EML 510 file, suitable for re-tabulating the

 preliminary results and selecting batches to be audited.  Or at
least

 get an existance proof that the fields are standardized well enough

 that such a program can be written - I'll do it if necessary.

 Sponsor an interop test among EML implementors using that program

 to test compatibility.

Comment 5) Make post tabulation
audit support a specific goal of EML in

 Section 3.2.6 of the EML spec ("The Auditing System"), and add

 schemas 510 and 520 as inputs to the audit cross-referencing process

 in figure 2H.  Reference "Principles and Best Practices for

 Post-Election Audits" http://electionaudits.org/principles/

 

Comment 6) Provide new 5xx
"Audit Results" schema for reporting the results of

 an audit, including selections, where discrepancies were found, and

 perhaps Or perhaps add  a few new standard elements that could make
the

 510 report suitable as an Audit Results.

This Audit Results schema could
be delayed until the next version of EML, when we have more experience in what
is needed.  But I think the other comments are necessary for the most
demanding and time-sensitive phase of the audit, and they are relatively easy
to address.  They would allow EML to become an interoperable standard that
would lower costs for auditing and thus help drive its adoption.

Thank you again for your work on this very important standard!

-- 

Neal McBurnett   
             http://neal.mcburnett.org/

-- This publicly archived list offers a means to provide
input to the OASIS Election and Voter Services TC. In order to verify user
consent to the Feedback License terms and to minimize spam in the list archive,
subscription is required before posting. Subscribe:
 Unsubscribe: 
List help:  List archive:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services-comment/ Feedback
License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf List
Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php Committee:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=election