You
can drop the I-Mark import, since we do not use the I-Mark software
anymore.
As for
the BRC import, that should really be called the El Paso, TX import, since it
was developed only for them. The reason I say this, is because Guadalupe,
TX which is one of our new customers, also uses BRC, but cannot do an import
because they have a different version of the BRC software.
Jeff
Gee, I think I'll disappear in
Mexico, too! Currently, we can import results from BRC and Imark
systems, ie. results are uploaded from those vendors' voting devices to their
respective software, then results are exported to GEMS. We do not
support the upload directly from any other vendors' voting devices to
GEMS.
Nel
Ouch. I am leaving for Mexico this evening. I may just stay there.
Even one better, I have been hearing that
election administrators are considering purchasing TS for early
voting in person and only one TS per election day polling place and
continuing to use their precinct count election day op scan whatever the
vendor. To stay in that market, we would therefore be in a situation
where the "blended" system would include third-party election equipment
which equals election night third party data upload into GEMS along side
the election night TS results. How many third-party systems do we
currently interface with via imports/exports?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 -----
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003
11:54 AM
Subject: RE: AVOS/TS blended system
uploads
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.
Karen Stubblefield-Emery Customer Service
Specialist Diebold Election Systems
Phone: 972-542-6000
x166 Email: karen@dieboldes.com
Ken,
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.
Mark
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
|