I think we need to plan
on most customers having both OS and TS in the future. Most counties will need
at least one OS to count Absentee ballots, and at least one TS to meet ADA
requirements. This is what we did in Georgia. I don't think this will go away
any time soon.
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf
Of Mark Earley
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003
10:24 AM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended
system uploads
Unsolicited
comments welcome. I do agree with most of the points in your message. I do not
look forward to making it work. However, the counties are required to adopt an
ADA compliant fix at the precinct level. Most of those that have our OS system
are going to go with a blended system, at least in the near term.
Many
have only recently purchased our OS and trained their staff, voters, and
pollworkers. They have been assured that it will work in conjunction with
our TS to satisfy ADA. I doubt they will nullify that expenditure and make
themselves look * by quickly replacing it with TS (unless we offer
them some very appealing incentives). Also, many of our older customers do
not want to leave the OS world, and they will only purchase the TS as forced
to.
Hopefully,
the ADA requirements and the concerns you point out about maintaining two
systems will lead them all down the path to full TS. A few are already looking
in that direction. But, blended systems are here for a while at least. If we
make it work for them (no fun in the support world), then they
will likely stay with us if/when they go full TS. If our blended
system has major problems, they will likely still go full TS, but with
another vendor.
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf
Of Ken Clark
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003
8:28 PM
To: support@dieboldes.com
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended
system uploads
There has never been even
a small-scale test of this kind, to my knowledge.
My unsolicited two cents
is that this is a crazy way to run an election. Expecting jurisdictions
to train for and administer two systems is just nuts. It is the worst of
a paper-based election with the worst of an electronic election. I
wouldn’t worry too much about whether GEMS can receive results from two
systems simultaneously. Even if that were the case, we could always fix
GEMS. I’d be worried about whether poll workers can send them.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-support@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com] On
Behalf Of Mark Earley
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003
4:31 PM
To: Support
Subject: AVOS/TS blended system
uploads
With
the new ADA requirements facing our OS customers, they will likely be knocking
on our door to purchase TS units to compliment their existing OS systems with
one TS unit in each precinct - coexisting with the OS units in a blended
system. While there are some problems with programming such a system (namely
needing to have another Vote Center category created for the TS units), these
are hurdles that can be managed (I guess they can - does anyone have
thoughts on this?). My bigger concern is handling the uploading of both TS and OS
results via modem into the GEMS server.
What
are the known issues relating to upload? I know that TS uses RAS
while OS uses regular serial com ports, thus the need for separate modem banks.
Can GEMS receive modem uploads from both OS and TS units at the same time? Has
this been tested in any kind of a medium to large scale test? Does anyone have
any experience with receiving both TS and OS modem uploads?
Mark Earley
850 422-2100 - office/fax
850 322-3226 – cell