Re: [OVC-demo-team] BRP fixes and status report

Hi Alan,

I'd be more than happy to help with rounding out the technical docs. I
completely understand that they are a work-in-progress. I did think that full
adherence was required before as per some previous conversations, but will
pick up from here instead solidifying the specification. One thing I'd like
to do is merge ALL the existing technical docs, such as the architecture spec
on the evm2003.sf.net site. In it are vague references to important things
such as the composition of ballot serials, which no one seemed to have a good
grasp on (not to mention outdated information). Let's work to update all of
this material to make it ready for perusal by third-parties and to assist in
internal development. That should help to reduce some of the communication
problems of late. Are we all in agreement here? There is a lot of good stuff
in the FAQ Karl is working on that we should look through, too.

In the name of good docs!

Eron

On Wednesday 07 April 2004 7:14 pm, Alan Dechert wrote:
> Eron,
>
> > 2. The application now implements the BRP spec to the T. Scanned barcodes
> > produce "b-" files, vote station files contain "v-", and verified files
>
> strip
>
> > the prefix entirely. The directories "scanned/", "stored/", and
>
> "verified/"
>
> > have been renamed to "barcodedata/", "votingmachinedata/", and
> > "results/", respectively. I kind of liked the old naming, but if you want
> > the spec, you've got the spec.
>
> The point is not to pedantically follow the spec. The spec is on a wiki
> page for a reason. I you want to change the spec, you can do that. But
> let's make sure the product and the spec match. We might like your
> directory names just fine (I do). But it is *very bad practice* to let the
> product lose connection with the spec.
>
> You might know what you did and why, and if you were the only one using the
> app then that would be fine. But when others are trying to use or test
> your software and they have a problem, they need a document that describes
> how the thing is supposed to be constructed.
>
> > 3. A final issue directly related to the code is the display of a
>
> "orphaned"
>
> > or "missing" ballot total, kind of an "extension" of the spec.
>
> It's fine to "extend" the spec, or fill it out. What I provided was merely
> a sketch. But you need to update the page where the spec lives.
>
> The spec allows others to know how your software is supposed to work.
>
> Alan
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================