public-service · VVSG major or minor update rule
VVSG Lifecycle Policy: Major and Minor Version Changes
The version-numbering, accreditation, submission, and review-cycle statements in the cited EAC Lifecycle Policy.
In this article
Updated: Sources: 1
Start here
What matters now
- The cited Lifecycle Policy describes how major and minor changes affect VVSG version numbers.
- A major change bumps the first number up and resets the second to zero (2.0 becomes 3.0); a minor change only bumps the second number (2.0 becomes 2.1).
- Major version changes can require new lab accreditation; minor version changes do not.
- A new major version's first lab accreditation starts a 12-month clock; after that, the EAC stops accepting new-system submissions to the prior major version, which becomes legacy.
- The EAC also runs a separate 12-month review cycle for considering VVSG revisions, apart from the version-numbering rule.
The cited EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy, dated April 8, 2024, states that it supersedes previous EAC policies concerning VVSG lifecycles. It describes version-number changes, possible accreditation consequences, a submission rule after the first VSTL accreditation to a new major version, and a revision-review cycle.
This original record-reading guide is a general reading aid, not cited evidence. It does not depict a source record; the article text and source links provide the facts.
Key points
- The policy says major changes increment the primary number and reset the secondary number, while minor changes increment the secondary number (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy).
- It says major changes may require VSTL accreditation and minor changes will not require it (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy).
- It describes a 12-month period after the first VSTL accreditation to a new major version (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy).
- It also states that each review for revisions has a 12-month cycle (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy).
How the version number is decided
The Lifecycle Policy sets a fixed numbering rule tied to the scope of the change, not to a calendar or a vote on any given release:
“Major changes to the VVSG will cause the primary number to increment by one and the secondary number to reset to zero. For instance, the new version number for VVSG 2.0 with major changes would be VVSG 3.0.” (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy)
“Minor changes to the VVSG will cause the secondary number to increment by one.” (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy)
The policy gives these examples of how its version numbers change.
Why the label matters for labs
The policy states:
“Major VVSG version changes may require VSTL accreditation. Minor VVSG version changes will not require VSTL accreditation.” (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy)
The provision distinguishes the stated accreditation treatment of major and minor version changes.
The 12-month submission clock
The policy states:
“Twelve months after the date of the first VSTL accreditation to a new major VVSG version, the EAC will no longer accept submissions to test new voting systems to previous major versions” (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy)
The quoted provision measures the period from the first VSTL accreditation to the new major version. The policy also states:
“Once a VVSG standard is no longer used for testing and certification of new and modified systems by the EAC, that standard will be assigned legacy status, and manufacturers will be required to submit voting systems to the latest VVSG standard.” (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy)
The EAC’s separate 12-month review cycle
Apart from the version-numbering and accreditation rules, the same policy also sets a recurring cadence for the EAC to consider revisions in the first place:
“There will be a 12-month cycle for each review for revisions to the VVSG.” (EAC VVSG Lifecycle Policy)
This is a separate policy statement about the timing of revision reviews.
What this policy doesn’t cover
This article does not state whether a particular VVSG edition has been published or accredited, identify a particular system’s certification, or make a claim about election conduct, security, or outcomes.