Administrative Updates (Allan Eustis):
Letters to NASS and NASED Regarding Benchmarks (David Flater):
It was determined at the end of the last TGDC meeting that we needed election community buy-in of the benchmarks in terms of accuracy and reliability. Letters were sent to NASS and NASED asking for comments/consensus on these issues. NASS has declined to take a position, we have not heard back from NASED. (It was noted that due diligence was taken to get feedback.) Comm. Davidson suggested contacting State Election Directors to find out what they are doing. CRT had been advised by NIST General Counsel not to do this, but it was suggested that EAC might be able to. Comm. Davidson will check with EAC General Counsel.
Discussion of Quality Assurance (QA)/Configuration Management (CM) Research Paper:
This paper was written after consensus at the December meeting that the ISO 9000 and 9001 standards should provide the framework for the VVSG 07 requirements dealing with QA/CM. This is a first draft of a set of requirements that attempted to do that. ISO 9000 is a general set of requirements - the real key is to design specific requirements that work for voting systems - that is what this paper tries to do. Alan asked for comments/feedback - did we address key issues, is it outside our scope, did we address everything within our scope? Steve Berger commented that this was going in the direction he had in mind. Steve also wanted to know if a vendor changed hardware/software, did it show up as a version change? Alan noted this specific issue was probably covered in configuration management. It is a valid concern and he will look into it.
Re 188.8.131.52, Philip Pearce asked about the critical parts list of what constitutes a failure of a part or a component - should there be something added regarding diminished accessibility or usability. Alan agreed and asked if Philip would draft up some appropriate bullets.
[NOTE: In 2005, TGDC requested process model - CRT's working draft contains informative process model.]
EMC Draft with Outline:
Discussion was held at a previous meeting about revisions of electrical requirements within environmental requirements section of the VVSG. It was suggested CRT reach beyond the voting team to experts in the field of electrical equipment testing. We've talked to experts (at NIST) regarding radiated interference and conducted electromagnetic interference. Based on these discussions, we have outlined work and some draft requirements for this area. Alan inquired if there were any general opinions or concerns regarding this outline.
Technical questions should be sent via email to Alan Goldfine. Steve Berger questioned if there was any field data about problems currently with these issues? The answer was no, but that should not stop the group from looking into it. Steve also mentioned that there were a lot of "to be determined" specs; including requirements question marks. Alan pointed out that this represented discussion about whether certain topics need to be developed within volume 5 of the VVSG. Are these testing standards or are they specifically testing scenarios. This is a work in progress - all the TBDs will be determined. Comm. Davidson suggested getting comments from the vendors about costs after Alan receives Steve's questions via email. John Wack, Allan Eustis, and Alan Goldfine will discuss offline about bringing this up at the next vendor's meeting.
Discussion Draft (Summary of Changes):
Revised set of draft requirements are available on the web. (Specifically this is David Flater's material which has been submitted to the editorial team for review and formatting.) The change log file contains a count of things that were changed between drafts. David went over a few of the changes. Biggest change was in the introductory informative text to coding conventions (C language with use of COTs add ons becomes structured language) , and in the follow on changes to the conventions themselves. Other changes (subject to revision) included: data to be provided, functional testing, conformity assessment and use of components.
The question was asked if for the definition of EBMs (electronically assisted ballot markers), was consideration given to blindness or visually impaired. David noted that he clarified the definition of EBMs but that the issue with blindness or visually impaired was being looked at specifically by HFP.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00.
policy / security notice / accessibility statement