[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# RE: Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For Texas)

- To: <support@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: RE: Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For Texas)
- From: "Don Vopalensky" <don@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:57:37 -0700
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <000a01c25a91$5cd75990$1e02af0a@dieboldes.com>

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

> Lesley,

> 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?

> Pat

> > -----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

> > Pat,

> > 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 -----

> > From: Ken Clark

> > To: 'Lesley Thompson'

> > 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.

> > Rodney

> > > -----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.

> > > Cathi

> > > > -----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.

> > > > Ken

> > > > > -----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

> > > > > Date Needed: ASAP

> > > > > 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

> > > > > For verification, this and other associated code may be viewed at the following location: https://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/eltoc.html

> > > > > 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

- Follow-Ups:
  - RE: Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For Texas)
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>

- References:
  - Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For Texas)
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>

- Prev by Date: Re: Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For Texas)
- Next by Date: RE: Arrrrgh! (was RE: SOVC - Cumulatively Tally Precincts With Under Five Ballots Cast In EV/Absentee - For Texas)
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread