Re: [Fed-Talk] Air Force is REMOVING macs (WAS: NETCOM Technical Authority (TA))
Re: [Fed-Talk] Air Force is REMOVING macs (WAS: NETCOM Technical Authority (TA))
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] Air Force is REMOVING macs (WAS: NETCOM Technical Authority (TA))
- From: Amanda Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:23:23 -0400
On Sep 14, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Croker, Barry A Capt AFRL/VAAC wrote:
It looks like the problem isn't the DAA, it's getting close enough to
the DAA to allow him to make the decision. The intermediates are
unwilling/unable/"too busy" to work what they think is an unimportant
issue. What I'd like to hear is someone's experience with getting
something signed by their DAA, and the process that they took...
I ran into this kind of DAA dance about a year ago as part of working
NISPOM and DITSCAP certifications. It was not Air Force, and it was
a T&E network rather than an operational one, but it was the same DAA
and the same set of wickets as we would have had to use to put Macs
on an operational network, so hopefully it'll be a useful perspective.
The basic rule I discovered was the one MAJ Hubert just described: if
your DAA signs off on it, you're golden. It doesn't matter what
directives are coming down from on high--if your DAA agrees that your
mission requires a particular solution and that you have the risks
covered, you can run whatever you want. In my case, it came down to
answering the question "Why should I care, and why can't you use
something I've already signed off on?" Once were were able to give a
solid and convincing answer to that question, the waters parted.
However, you can't do this by applying pressure: the job of the DAA
is to put his or her own personal guarantee that you're doing the
right thing for your mission, so it's a matter of persuasion--of
helping the DAA buy into what you want to accomplish.
As far as getting some attention from the people involved, that's
definitely a challenge. We eventually did it by showing how forward
movement on our certification was on the critical path to fielding
tactical systems that upper echelons had declared were a priority
(even though they couldn't care less about our system in
particular). Once getting us through our wickets meant "showing
progress on higher level priorities", we got more attention.
Amanda Walker
email@hidden
--
vi is really easy, once you learn the fundamental truth, which is
that vi has two modes: one that beeps at you, and another that
corrupts your data.
--Unknown
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden