|
Ken,
Texas
now requires ITA certification. The last ITA certification number on GEMS
is 1.17.22. Since neither the GEMS 1.18 series and 4.3 series
firmware been certified through Ciber or Wyle, (been there since May) that
doesn't leave us many options now does it. The last certification
meeting in Texas was with 1.17.17, and that didn't pass mainly because
of the audit log issues. By July 29th, 2002 I had to submit to Texas what
version we would be submitting for Sept. with the Texas fixes, knowing
that nothing had been done to date to fix those problems we had.
Already knowing that 1.18 or 4.3 weren't even close to being certified, it was
much easier to give them what we do have, and has worked in past elections,
and has been through ITA, (1.17.22) and give them 1.17.23 with the
additional fixes that apply to Texas. Easier to explain, and easier for
Ciber and Wyle to test and sign off on.
Florida is another example--
Florida is currently running on 1.17.17. You know
what a pain it is to get anything certified through that state. They
called me yesterday stating that we need a fix in our exporting of reports to
the state. Something that was done in VTS, but doesn't work in GEMS.
Do you want to submit 1.18 because you decided to put the fix in that and not in
1.17 series which is what everyone in Florida is on? Florida requires ITA, 1.18 not CERTIFIED
YET! Even if it was, do you think we should upgrade everyone over to 1.18
in Florida after they just completed their primary this week on
!.17.17, and running again in November (less than two
months) with probably their largest ballot ever? ITA certifications,
state certifications, and time constraints play a big part in what needs to be
done, and sometimes that means putting fixes or additions back into versions
that are already in use, and resulted in a good election. Maybe that
means one number change in the version, but that's much easier to get through
Wyle, Ciber and the states than submitting a completely new version (1.17.? to
1.18.?).
And if Dmitry finished the Under
Five feature on February 19th,why wasn't it included in the (1.17.23
which was for Texas) which wasn't finished until sometime in September knowing
that the Under Five feature was for Texas
anyway?
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Clark
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:20 PM
To:
support@dieboldes.com
Subject: Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively
Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas)
I don’t know how the
agreement to add Texas features to 1.17 was
reached (I was probably on the beach), but whether SOVC Under Five was on the list
or not is entirely beside the point.
The whole notion that “Texas may never need the
added functionality that the 1.18 series brings” is so self-contradictory it
makes me stutter. They already
need the functionality that 1.18 brings:
Under
Five!
Oh, but they don’t
need any of the other
features in 1.18.
That makes perfect sense.
How about California? They don’t give a rat’s ass about
Under Five. But Knecht/Tari need
multi-lingual paper ballots this November. Do I put that in 1.17? How about export of audio files that
Jeff Hallmark wants for Georgia? Let’s toss that in too. Greg Forsythe will surely have an
easier time with cross-endorsement in
Pennsylvania certification if we
put it in 1.17, avoiding the need to explain all those pesky other features
that are crufting up 1.18. I’d go through the entire 1.18 feature
set, but it gets repetitive fast.
Look. New features get added. The version numbers get bigger. Why this even needs explaining is so
beyond me I cannot comprehend. If
Texas wants Under Five,
then they should be certifying the version that has this feature. It is just that simple. Under Five
isn’t even a recent addition.
Dmitry finished the work Feburary
19th. What
have we been doing since then?
[bangs head on table
repeatedly]
If the support group
wants open season on adding features to whatever release suits their neck of
the woods, then I am all for it. It takes a lot of effort and even more
discipline to maintain separate release branches so that you guys have at
least a fleeting hope of running a stable version of GEMS come election time.
If you guys don’t want that, then
say the word. It makes my job a
hell of a lot easier. I am tired
of being the bad-guy on this.
Ken
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-rcr@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-rcr@dieboldes.com] On Behalf Of Green, Pat
Sent: Thursday, September 12,
2002 11:17
AM
To: Thompson, Lesley
Cc: DES - rcr; Martin, Mickey; Juan
Rivera; Herron, Barry
Subject: RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally
Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas
I don't
need a rehashing of the 1.17 vs 1.18 argument. Many weeks ago, we agreed
to put all the changes needed for Texas into 1.17.23
specifically for these reasons. I asked everyone to make sure we had a
complete list of what Texas needed so we didn't
waste time with multiple releases. How was this one
missed?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Lesley
Thompson (earthlink) [mailto:lesleytdiebold@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 12,
2002 1:27
PM
To: Pat Green
Cc: rcr@dieboldes.com;
mickeym@dieboldes.com; Juan Rivera; Barry Herron
Subject: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally
Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas
The requirement that was
submitted in the following RCR was and is specifically for
Texas.
DESI has only submitted GEMS 1.17 series to
Texas for
certification so having this change made in the 1.18 series does
Texas
and our customers no good. I respectfully request that this
change be added to the 1.17.23+ version currently under review at ITA so
that we can assure Texas that we
comply with this statute in the series we are asking to be certified for use
here. We have no option to go to GEMS 1.18 series in
Texas at this
time and Texas may never need the
added functionality that the 1.18 series brings.
Therefore, any "fixes" or "changes" we do for
Texas must be
in the GEMS 1.17 series. Thanks for your help.
Les
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lesley Koop Thompson
Customer
Service Project Manager
Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
415-235-6553
(office cell)
512-413-7618 (cell)
lesley@dieboldes.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent:
Monday, September
09, 2002 10:27
AM
Subject: RE:
Under Five Ballots
Cast??????????????????
It is
a 1.18 feature. Here is the announcement
from Tab, from April.
Ken
-----Original
Message-----
From: Lesley
Thompson [mailto:lesley@dieboldes.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 07,
2002 5:38
PM
To: Ken Clark
Subject: Fw: Under Five Ballots
Cast??????????????????
Ken, I can't find where this got
put into the 1.17 series for Texas.
Can you shed any light here? Thanks.
Lesley
(ticking, ticking,
ticking....)
RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally
Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas
1.
To:
<rcr@dieboldes.com>
2.
Subject:
RE: SOVC -
Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee -
For
Texas
3.
From:
"Rodney Turner"
<rodney@dieboldes.com>
4.
Date: Fri, 25 Jan
2002 14:31:05 -0600
5.
Importance:
Normal
6.
In-reply-to: <NEBBJGJMLKDDDJPJPODBOEENCHAA.csglobal@earthlink.net>
This is a "hot"
item along with the "BOD" issue. If we can deliver these upgrades
to GEMS, it would seal the deal in Bexar for us. They will be making a
decision around the 7th of FEB. So, we would have to let them
know before then. (like by the 30th of Jan 02) Keep in mind, these
changes will effect all of the counties in
Texas.
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-rcr@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-rcr@dieboldes.com]On
Behalf Of Cathi Smothers
Sent: Monday, February 25,
2002 1:59
PM
To: rcr@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: SOVC - Cumulatively
Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas
Thanks,
Ken. Rodney and/or Barry - could you please provide a clear sense of
the timing on this. Ken, I do know that Bexar is looking for this
now as it is a factor in the system selection process which is
happening as we speak.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-rcr@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-rcr@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Ken Clark
Sent: Friday, January 25,
2002 2:40
PM
To: rcr@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: SOVC - Cumulatively
Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas
This is
actually an exceedingly well-written RCR with the exception of the ASAP
part. I especially like the statute quote. Let us know the
deadline and the nature of the deadline, and we'll see where it fits
into the queue.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
owner-rcr@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-rcr@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Cathi
Smothers
Sent:
Friday, January 25,
2002 10:32
AM
To: RCR
Subject: SOVC - Cumulatively
Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For
Texas
Date
Requested: January 25,
2002
Requested
By: Texas
Accounts
Description: The Texas
accounts need to have the ability to print an SOVC report where any
precincts that have under five ballots cast in early voting/absentee
(absentee/cumulative counter group selection) have only zeros
displayed in their totals fields and the totals from those
precincts then accumulated and displayed at the end of
the precinct list but before the grand total line in a line
labeled "Under Fives". This would be best implemented as a check
box in the "Show Options" labeled as "Separate Under
Fives"
Motivation: Texas
State Law requires
that early voting/absentee results for precincts where under
five ballots have been cast cannot be released by precinct.
The text
of the Texas Election Code
follows:
Title 7,
Section 87.1231.
(a) Not
later than the time of the local canvass, the early voting clerk shall
deliver to the local canvassing authority a report of the total number
of early voting votes for each candidate or measure by election
precinct. The report may reflect the total for votes by mail and
the total for votes by personal
appearance.
(b) The
early voting clerk may not report vote totals under Subsection (a) for
an election precinct in which fewer than five votes are cast during
the early voting period
Attached is a
sample current SOVC and a representation of an SOVC with "Absentee"
(cumulative) counter group and the proposed "Separate Under
Fives" option selected. Also attached is a representation of the
"Under Fives" line as it should appear on the
report.
Cathi
Smothers
Global
Election Systems
423.842.0937
423.505.7507
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lesley Koop Thompson
Customer
Service Project Manager
Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
415-235-6553
(office cell)
512-413-7618 (cell)
lesley@dieboldes.com
|