Thread Subject: Re: AT Definition

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Thu, May 31 2007 5:00 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: jagbell: "Re: AT Definition"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Janice, Diane indicated that your dissent will be noted. You can be assured
that this will be reflected in the summary.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:13 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] AT Definition

Please note that I did dissent. :)



On May 31, 2007, at 2:13 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> I think that is right.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Diane Golden
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:23 AM
>> To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] AT Definition
>>
>> Per all the discussion on AT definition, I think the best we
>> can do is leave the current definition as is (there seems to
>> be no dissent on what is there) and I'll add a note at the
>> end that says it was suggested that a list of AT be included
>> but there was no consensus on that addition. Alternative
>> suggestions were to reference outside lists, like CAP and
>> Natl Public AT web site, and/or ask federal agencies to
>> identify AT they use. That way we provide all the info to
>> the TEITAC as a whole for action at the July meeting.
>>
>> In a separate email, I will send out information on the
>> definition of "E&IT"
>> and "Product" along with the discussion from the plenary
>> meeting on those terms.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: jagbell: "Re: AT Definition"