Thread Subject: Fwd: Please Read by 12/13 Meeting: Recap of Dec 6 TF mtg

From: Judy Brewer
Date: Wed, Dec 12 2007 1:45 PM

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

Dear All, I'm not sure that Ellen's mail posted to the TF mailing
list, so I'm forwarding this. Please see below. Thanks, ~Judy.

>Subject: Please Read by 12/13 Meeting: Recap of Dec 6 TF mtg
>Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:42:33 -0600
>From: "BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Cc: "Judy Brewer" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>DECEMBER 6 TASK FORCE MEETING RECAP
>
>We had our first call with good attendance. Some members noted that
>they were in listening mode and not able to speak on behalf of their
>organizations at the first task force teleconference. We discussed
>the basic analytical framework that had been circulated on the list
>beforehand. We discussed what is covered under 255 today and have
>since circulated a list to task force members of covered entities,
>products and functionalities with references to the rules to aid the
>groups thinking. The analytical framework being used by the group
>identifies the areas of the standards that would have applicability
>to 255 (for example, standards regarding web content would be
>relevant for on-line documentation and on-line user interfaces for
>covered services).
>
> We also asked members to identify provisions that would not have
> any applicability to 255 or need modification. Specifically, we
> discussed some of the "agency provisions" that may not be relevant
> to 255 as they are focused on agency use of procured products. We
> also identified the authoring tools provisions as not being
> directly relevant to 255.
>
>We also began to discuss some specific examples of where a
>particular requirement would have relevance to a covered product or
>functionality, aided by a matrix Greg V. circulated. We also noted
>that it is not clear that we need to specify the extent to which or
>circumstances under which a given product is covered. It may be
>enough to identify as examples a few circumstances or product types
>covered by 255 where the standard in question would be relevant.
>
>We also noted the need to review some of the language previously
>submitted by Karen Peltz Strauss.
>
>The chairs are developing some proposed approaches to circulate to
>the group based on that discussion, previous discussions and
>proposals made during the teitac.
>
>Thanks and we will see you tomorrow.
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None