RE: [election-services] EML v6 CHANGES - TC MEETING

Title: Re: [election-services] EML v6 CHANGES - TC MEETING

I see two separate states: "spoilt" for truly not to be counted already determined for some official reason; "pendingreview" for those that are in a state that needs to be assessed by someone.

 

I think you are right, both are possible uses; conditional contests is the easy match; having non-contest items to control processing is another.

 

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall [mailto:]
Sent: Wed 1/27/2010 7:16 PM
To: John Borras
Cc: eml
Subject: Re: [election-services] EML v6 CHANGES - TC MEETING

For the "spoilt" naming issue, we essentially want something that
communicates "needs human intervention", no?  What about "unclear" or
"indeterminate"?

For the "Do not see any provision for control contests." issue, isn't
this just a contingent contest setup (where one contest depends on the
selection made in a previous one)?  I don't understand the practical
need, if not.  Maybe this is getting at choices presented on the
ballot that aren't actual votes (like a straight-party selection
choice).

best, Joe

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php