Re: [election-services] RE: EML UPDATE

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:54 AM, John Borras <John@pensive.eu> wrote:
> Yes we are getting all the ducks in a row between us, IEEE and NIST and in that avoiding duplication of effort etc and at the same time ensuring �a very strong, well thought through standard that would be difficult to ignore or compete with. �The working assumption is that IEEE will produce a USA Localisation of EML as their standard and if that si the case they can accommodate any/all minor flavours of IRV required in USA. �For us the focus in EML has to be on the more readily accepted flavours whilst leaving options for extensibility locally. �So out of DR's comments we will need to decide how much of the detail we try and accommodate in v6.0 and how much we pass to IEEE to deliver. �It may be we can do it all, I don't know and that's where we need some expertise to understand the problem space properly.

Fascinating!

> In terms of helping David I think there are two strands. �First help in understanding and translating in EML terms the requirements, as in this case of IRV/STV, and then secondly helping with the coding changes. �Perhaps you fall more into the former category, in which case can you dig a bit deeper into IRV/STV in USA and let us know what we need to accommodate and how much of DR's comments are just pure theory if any?

Ok, I can take a shot at this. best, Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/