Thread Subject: Servers and other hardware-- back office exemption

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Feb 21 2007 3:35 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: terry.weaver@gsa.gov: "Re: Servers and other hardware"
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

_____

From: Jim Tobias [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:27 PM
To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware


Thanks again, Terry, for this important verification. The exemption is not
about the equipment; it's about the
space in which it is being used. So, for example, all the physical control
provisions that would be applied to
a router (e.g. force requirement on a reset button) are in full effect.

But puzzle me this: why is there an exemption that goes beyond the actual
situation in question? That is,
consider a wiring closet that is not wheelchair accessible. Why not allow a
maintenance person, not a
wheelchair user but with impaired dexterity, to do this job? I can see the
architectural access exemption,
and perhaps a similar one for rack-mounted equipment out of the permitted
reach range, but not anything
beyond that. Am I missing something?


***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:04 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware



The back office exemption is a location-based exclusion that only the
purchasing Federal agency could claim. It was never intended to address a
class of equipment. The premise was that if a server or a router was to be
located in a space that had physical limitations (eg., a wiring closet),
then the agency could claim this exemption only for the hardware and
software that must be run only from that location. If it was on a network
and the software was to be run remotely, then there wasn't a valid claim for
using the exemption for the software component.





"Thomas Albin" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


02/21/2007 04:26 PM


Please respond to
"TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >



To
"TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware






Hi Gina,
Does this mean that you want to do away with the "back room" exclusion?
Tom Albin

On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Regina Caldanaro wrote:


We've unofficially renamed ourselves "hardware" but the only discussion
<snip>

• Next message in Thread: terry.weaver@gsa.gov: "Re: Servers and other hardware"
• Previous message in Thread: None