The source code review is literally running an automated linter. That's it.
-
-
-
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
I've started diving into this. It's even worse than I feared.
5 replies 44 retweets 107 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
I'm going to be getting all this up on Github later. I have about 25 more reports to process. Initial findings are not great.
3 replies 37 retweets 130 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
The accredited testing labs publish test reports. These reports document the software review process and report any anomalies.
2 replies 31 retweets 69 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
So far the testing is just "we ran a linter against a style guide and hashed the build".
4 replies 45 retweets 118 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
And the anomalies are some seriously amateur hour stuff: - line too long - improper indentation - file header out of sync with version
4 replies 58 retweets 147 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
I don't understand why the code on voting machines isn't auditable. LITERALLY the machine of democracy. Fuck proprietary IP.
2 replies 27 retweets 110 likes -
Replying to @outseide @EmilyGorcenski
Can we initiate an open source project for this somehow? GNU'd a voting machine like RMS did unix.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @shanecelis @EmilyGorcenski
I have no idea. I think mechanisms for voting are decided on very local levels. Would be awesome!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
One challenge is that almost all elections are local or state. So delegation to state authority does make sense.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.