*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** I just bumped into some very interesting election-related XML developments while reading the International Press Telecommunications Council's <<http://www.iptc.org> June newsletter <http://www.iptc.org/site/mirror.html>. Actually I started here <http://www.drop.org/> which led me here <http://xmlhack.com/read.php?item=1283> and reminded me that I never got an answer to my questions to the NewsML developers about <http://mail.tc.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=do-wire&P=R1725> about how reader feedback mechanisms would be built into the standard for future global news exchange. I still want to know if e-mail/web form replies to the original journalists as well as an optional links to web comment boards that would bring together all the readers of a particular story will have their own data fields or be dumped unstandardized into some field requiring manual interpretation. Is the default to shield journalists from feedback? Is the default to discourage meaningful, critical mass two-way communication about a story? I am also interested in how "source" documents (not journalist "sources") such as referenced government reports or online versions of original press releases can be passed along to make it easier for editors to pick useful related material for direct linking or print presentation for the readers. To the many inspiration for this post ... Election Markup Language Development The May 15 minutes below give a good sense of the goals and timeline for this project. The "juice" is in here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services/ In terms of priorities and what will be adopted by states and national governments, I wonder if focusing on election and voter _information_ services (like candidate lists, general voter information guides, etc.) might be the place to start verse actual ballot transactions? I am interested in the "integrated voter experience" where all official documents and processes are presented consistent "brand identified" way to citizens in a specific jurisdiction (ahh, this looks like an election-related document, just as tax forms and support material look like official tax information). As far I understand, XMLizing voting related information would allow much easier use of templates for display of the core information so the usability of both paper and online products could be systematically improved while maintain a more uniform look and feel. I am also particularly interested in how information systems can be built to aide the syndication of "governance" information directly from government sources to third parties (.orgs, .coms, other .govs etc.) (i.e. who is my representative, how are they voting, when are they up for re-election) could be leveraged for election year "specials" and include information on other candidates for that same office. The .com and .org election-only directories of recent years seem extremely expensive when most (not all) are designed in such that they are not usable the day after an election. In the end, this OASIS committee needs a substantial level of direct participation by technical representatives of government election offices (the UK e-envoy's office is a start - I can understand why they are involved since they pledged to have all government service electronically available by 2005 <http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/ukonline/progress/anrep1/030.htm#04> and voting is a service (right?), then the top government decision to allow some form of electronic voting in the UK has already been made ... to not do so would be a break with existing policy!) In the U.S., NASED-members <http://www.nased.org> have the real power in election administration. They need to be front and center in any voting related effort to increase the likelihood of adoption. Perhaps they are involved - please advise? For information on joining any OASIS group including this one, see <http://www.oasis-open.org/join/> - $250 for an individual and more for organizations. Steven Clift Democracies Online http://www.e-democracy.org/do From: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/committees.shtml OASIS Election and Voter Services TC The purpose of the Election and Voter Services Technical Committee is to develop a standard for the structured interchange of data among hardware, software, and service providers who engage in any aspect of providing election or voter services to public or private organizations. The services performed for such elections include but are not limited to voter role/membership maintenance (new voter registration, membership and dues collection, change of address tracking, etc.), citizen/membership credentialing, redistricting, requests for absentee/expatriate ballots, election calendaring, logistics management (polling place management), election notification, ballot delivery and tabulation, election results reporting and demographics. More ... Election Services TC Member List Name Representing email Oliver Bell Microsoft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Karl Best OASIS [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Borras UK e-Envoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tim Bovee Associate Press (IPTC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin Broadfoot Baltimore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anwar Choudhury UK e-Envoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robin Cover XML Cover Pages [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stephen Farrell Baltimore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steven Hagan Unisys [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Hudson UK e-envoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason Kitkat Free Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alex Leventhal Accenture [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Livesey UK e-envoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gregg McGilvray election.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ed McLaughlin Accenture [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Minnich Voting Integrity Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Deborah Phillips Voting Integrity Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] TJ Rainsford IFES [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dan Ryan Accenture [EMAIL PROTECTED] Krishna Sankar Cisco Systems [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thom Wysong Technodemocracy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Zolotarev Baltimore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Election and Voter Registration Technical Committee Minutes of Meeting 15-May 2001 Meeting Format: Face-to-face with teleconference Chair: Gregg McGilvray Location: election.com Headquarters, 1001 Franklin Ave., Garden City, New York 11530, USA Attendees: In person - Gregg McGilvray, Dan Ryan, Alex Leventhal; Via teleconference - Michael Minnich, Oliver Bell, Karl Best, Tim Bovee, Steven Hagan, Jason Kitkat, Deborah Phillips, TJ Rainsford, Krishna Sankar, Thom Wysong The meeting was called to order by Mr. McGilvray at 2:03 PM EDT Mr. McGilvray welcomed everyone and went through a brief explanation of XML for the benefit of the non-technical attendees. He also explained that OASIS was chosen to host the standard because of their openness, vendor independence, and global scope. Karl Best, Director of Technical Operations, gave an overview of OASIS including its charter and the process and conduct of its technical committees. He also explained the Intellectual Property Rights policy of OASIS and suggested that more information could be obtained from the organizations web site http://www.oasis-open.org. Mr. McGilvray gave a background on the committee including the timeframes observed for the formation of the committee, call for participation, and the deadline and requirements for becoming a voting member. The requirements for being a voting member at the first meeting were to have signed up for the committee prior to May 1, 2001 and attend the first meeting. He also stated that anyone signed up for the committee before this meeting would be able to vote at the next face-to-face meeting (which will be scheduled for more than 60 days from this meeting date) if there were any issue to vote upon. The requirements for becoming a voting member after the May 1 deadline are either attendance at three meetings or passing the 60 day probationary period, whichever comes first. A standing rule was established for conducting business and voting by email to accommodate worldwide members. The discussion list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) may be posted to by committee members and will be publicly archived at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services. The public may make comments and suggestions at [EMAIL PROTECTED] It was decided to conduct teleconference meetings every three weeks and face-to-face meetings approximately every 2 months. If alternate meeting locations are made available we will take advantage of them to ease travel burdens on those wishing to attend meetings in person. It was suggested by a US west coast participant that future meetings could start as early as 7:00 AM PST (10:00 AM EDT, 14:00 GMT). There was no objection. The committee business began with an outline of areas of interest that were submitted in the documentation for the formation of the committee. It was suggested that these areas were only a starting point and could be amended or altered as the committee saw fit. The areas included: 1) Ballot generation and return vote tabulation, 2) Security (including authentication, authorization, and auditing), 3) Voter registration and membership role management, 4) Reporting and demographics, 5) Accessibility. The security areas of authorization, auditing, and authentication were originally separate items but Mr. Sankar suggested that they be combined under the umbrella of "Security". The phases for completion of the above areas with the deliverable dates were broken down as follows: Phase I - Ballot delivery and Vote Return Security Authentication Authorization Auditing Accessibility Deliverable: Specification ready for OASIS vote by November 15, 2001. Phase II - Election Notification New voter/membership registration Voter/membership management Absentee expatriate ballot request Results Reporting Deliverable: Specification ready for OASIS vote by May 15, 2002. Phase III - Election Calendaring Redistricting Those items yet to be identified Deliverable: Specification ready for OASIS vote by November 15, 2002. Phase I Action Items: Gregg McGilvray will make available to the distribution list by early next week his draft of the ballot and return vote specification (BML). Dan Ryan will do some research into accessibility issues and the role of data interchange as it relates to accessibility. Krishna Sankar will begin the leg work in coordinating with the Security Services Committee and begin addressing the security concerns of this committee. All members will consider any other needs which need to be addressed and the timeframes for addressing them. Other Matters brought before the meeting: Several members expressed concerns that the imposition of a fee to become an OASIS member may be a barrier to entry for some not-for-profit groups and may give the appearance of being a close committee for that reason. A discussion with OASIS will follow. Ms. Phillips suggested that we promote the standard to ensure a broader acceptance of and participation in the standard. She, Mr. Rainsford, and other members suggested various individuals and group that should be contacted to support this idea. Groups such as NASS (Sharon Priest), ITAA, National Commission of election Reform, etc. were suggested and members will follow up with them. Mr. Rainsford suggested forming relationships with other standards groups such as NITF and Mr. Sankar suggested that we form binding subcommittees with such groups. A suggestion was made to make a list of committee members available to all committee members. A suggestion to post name and email address to the mail list and web site met no resistance and will be posted shortly. Mr. Ryan and Mr. Sankar responded to a call for volunteers for the position of committee secretary and committee editor respectfully. Mr. McGilvray will continue to act as web master. Future Meetings: June 12, 2001 teleconference only July 24, 2001 face-to-face and teleconference OASIS Election and Voter Services Technical Committee Teleconference Meeting Minutes June 12, 2001, 10 AM Eastern Daylight Savings Time Attendees: Gregg McGilvray, election.com, Chairman Tim Bovee, Associated Press (IPTC) Steven Hagan, Unisys Tracy Lewin, election.com Brian McCormick, election.com Deborah Phillips, Voting Integrity Project Kathy Procope, Accenture TJ Rainsford, IFES Dan Ryan, Accenture Krishna Sankar, Cisco Systems Thom Wysong, Technodemocracy Previous Meeting’s Minutes No additions or changes to the previous meeting’s minutes (which can be found at http://www.oasis- open.org/committees/election/oasis_tc_minutes_20010515.shtml) were made. Scope of Charter Gregg noted that since the last meeting some members have voiced concerns on the email list (archives: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services) about the scope of the committee’s charter. Gregg sensed that some of the concern is that the charter is too centered on for-profit vendors. Tim Bovee felt that it was fine, noting that the term “service provider” is a generic enough term to apply to non-profit vendors as well. Deborah Phillips raised concerns that the charter was too narrow and did not take into account integration with non-election systems. She noted that different system such as local tax rolls and the Department of Justice play a roll in elections, particularly with registration and list maintenance. After further discussion, the consensus of the attendees was that the charter’s scope was broad enough to include non-election entities as well. Thom Wysong raised concerns about whether “data exchange” was too narrow of scope for the committee. Tim Bovee suggested that “data exchange” should be interpreted to be all encompassing. Dan Ryan noted Thom’s email about presentation, and agreed with his conclusion that presentation might not be appropriate, but that sample implementations might be useful, either inside or outside of the committee. Krishna Sankar later noted that standards conformance is within the scope of the committee, and will be an essential to its success. Gregg pointed out that EML was to be more of an architecture than a single implementation. Ballots, voter registration and other election-related items will be sub-parts of the EML standard. The charter discussion concluded with the conclusion that there was no need to change the current charter. Deliverables Krishna Sankar suggested that the committee should start generating use cases and domain models. Dan Ryan suggested that non-technical documents should be included, to make the committee’s work more accessible to the general election community. Krishna volunteered to create the first use case as a model for future use cases. Expanding Committee Membership Gregg related that he is working with Scott McGrath of OASIS to encourage more organizations to join the committee, such as those related to accessibility. Deborah noted that she is on a discussion panel at the National Federation of the Blind conference in July, where she hopes to tout the committee. Both Gregg and Deborah discussed vendors specializing in accessibility software and hardware as potential committee members. Deborah had noted earlier that it would be good to involve the Department of Justice, as they deal with election matters. Action Items Krishna Sankar will submit to the email list a use case as a starting point and example for future use cases. Gregg McGilvray will continue reaching out to potential committee members. Gregg McGilvray will talk with the UK members to determine the best starting time for the next meeting. Next Meeting The next meeting will be July 24th, with the starting time to be determined later. There being no further business, a motion to close the meeting was made by Mr. Leventhal at 3:25 PM and seconded by Mr. Ryan. Click Here to Return to Election-Services Home Page ^ ^ ^ ^ Steven L. Clift - W: http://www.publicus.net Minneapolis - - - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota - - - - - T: +1.612.822.8667 USA - - - - - - - ICQ: 13789183 *** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE *** *** To unsubscribe instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE *** *** Please forward this post to others and encourage *** *** them to subscribe to the free DO-WIRE service. ***
