Ballot Details: EML v7 - Motion to request TC-Admin to conduct a Special Majority Ballot for Committee Specification approval. (CLOSED)

Ballot Question Do you approve the motion to request TC-Admin to conduct a Special Majority Ballot to approve EML Specification CSPRD01 which the TC approved on 4 July 2011 as a Committee Specification?
Ballot Description Only Committee Specification Public Review Drafts can be approved as Committee Specifications. A Special Majority Ballot is required and must be conducted by the OASIS TC Administrator. The TC must first approve a motion to request a Special Majority Ballot which must include the CSPRD number and approval date. This is that motion to approve.
Ballot Options
VOTING CLOSED: Friday, 30 September 2011 @ 9:00 am ET
Yes 8 88 8/9
No w/comment 1 11 1/9
Open Date Friday, 23 September 2011 @ 9:00 am ET
Close Date Friday, 30 September 2011 @ 9:00 am ET

Referenced Items

Name Type Date

  • Folder: Approved Work Products
  • Group: OASIS Election and Voter Services TC
  • State: Committee Draft
  • -

CSPRD01: Election Markup Language (EML) Specification Version 7.0 Committee Specification Draft 01 / Public Review Draft 01 04 July 2011 (Authoritative)

EML Specification v1.0 CSPRD01 Document 2011-08-17

Voting Statistics

Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions) 9
Eligible members who have voted 9 of 9 100%
Eligible members who have not voted 0 of 9 0%

Voting Summary by Option

Options with highest number of votes are bold
Option # Votes % of Total
Yes 8 88 8/9%
No w/comment 1 11 1/9%

Voting Details

Voter Name Company Vote * Time (GMT) Comments
* Borras, John Individual Yes 2011-09-23 13:07:00
* Cardone, Richard Individual Yes 2011-09-26 01:10:00
* Montanez, Carmelo NIST Yes 2011-09-29 17:31:00
* Ross, John Individual Yes 2011-09-30 12:30:00
* Rubben, Sven IBM Yes 2011-09-23 13:31:00
* Wack, John NIST Yes 2011-09-29 16:37:00
* Webber, David Oracle Yes 2011-09-23 14:16:00
* Zelechoski, Peter Election Systems & Software Yes 2011-09-26 13:09:00
* McBurnett, Neal Individual No w/comment 2011-09-23 14:16:00 1

Voter Comments

Submitter Vote Comment
McBurnett, Neal
No As I noted in feedback to p1622 starting in June, and in email this morning to election-services, the new hash-related attributes of the URL element are a needless burden for implementers and open up several interoperability issues. XML Signature and the Reference and Digest* elements are the standard way to provide integrity and authenticity for XML.