Ran across a couple of Y2K websites that I was pretty impressed with. One was the ZDNet Y2k site ( www.zdnet.com/zdy2k/ ) which has a large collection of news and info articles from all over the USA and world.

The other site (www.y2ktimebomb.com) has an article under the "Economy" heading written by J.D. Peters that should be required reading for ANYONE making preparations for possible Y2K-related scenarios. I intend to take the substance of this article with me when I talk to local groups and officials regarding getting better Y2K information and being more forthright about preparations to make.

The article's main point was to indicate that people tend to work together to solve a community wide problem when they've been given an honest assesment and information about the problem facing them BEFORE the problem happens. Compare this to the total lack of information coming out of government or corporate sources. More interest is shown in keeping the public ignorant and quiet than in keeping them informed and well prepared for what may happen. Give the articles and the sites a look-over and draw your own conclusions about the direction you'd like YOUR community to take. All Success Keith

-- Anonymous, September 17, 1998

Answers

Hi Keith,

First off, just want you to know I'm not arguing with you a bit here. You're right: The biggest impediment to being able to make substantial progresss in our communitities has been the lack of credible sources providing honest information: The average person doesn't A) know about it, or B) believe it's going to be a problem because everything on the tube is absolutely normal. It's been one of the strangest things I've ever encountered. I call it the "Profound Mystery." To me it's like "They" have figured out how to hide a herd of elephants under a handful of napkins.

But it does seem that the best, most honest and consistent source of honest information has been, ironically, the federal government. The very first time I heard of the year 2000 problem (in about November of 1996) was some oddball little story on the network news about a congressman (Stephen Horn) who'd come out with a "report card" on how federal agencies were doing in their efforts to solve "the year 2000 computer problem." It went in one ear and out the other, of course, for another ten months, but that was the first time I'd heard of it... The General Accounting Office has been amazing (for a government institution): They've been sounding one of the biggest, loudest, clearest alarms on planet for a long time. And recently, Senators Bennett and Dodd have been banging the gong by dragging the infrastructure people before their new, special y2k committee, and generally embarrassing them. I have not real idea, but their actions may have contributed to NERC getting involved as a hub in the power situation. A good and overdo thing. (It still amazes me that Rick Cowles' excellent web site has been the ONLY free, public, centralized source of information on the y2k status of the most important element of the practical world!)

And while the blame game never gets anyone anywhere, it seems obvious the media (that prides itself on its incredible powers of investigation, and is forever talking about its national "watchdog" roll) is either missing that herd of elephants, or making editorial decisions that have nothing to do with priorities and everything to do with cash).

And, of course, standing at the controls behind the incredible curtain of fog are the lawyers (from the corporate offices to capitol hill) giving new definition to the word expediency, and basically playing God when it comes to who should find out what when. If y2k turns out to be rough, and people finally figure that one out, we'll all be hearing a lot of the old whining about how, "There was nothing I could do. I couldn't advise my client to go public, to share information. My hands were tied!" (By the law, of course.)

But let's not get into that one today... Here's the real reason I'm contributing to this thread. Your post reminded me of this part of an email I got last week. It came from Declan McCullagh, ONE of the people in the media (Time online) who has consistently reported on y2k in a way that makes it seem as serious as it no doubt will prove to be. This is recent information provided by the federal gov two weeks ago today:

"The federal government's own Y2K-fix percentages, released last Friday, from netlynews.com:

• Agriculture Department: 50 percent
• Commerce Department (includes Patent and Trademark Office): 59 percent
• Defense Department: 27 percent
• Education Department (includes Sandia National Laboratory): 13 percent
• Health and Human Services (includes Medicaid, Medicare): 14 percent
• Housing and Urban Development: 40 percent
• Justice Department (includes FBI): 18 percent
• Labor Department: 19 percent
• State Department: 0 percent
• Transportation Department (includes FAA): 11 percent
• Treasury Department (includes IRS, BATF): 44 percent
• Federal Emergency Management Agency: 47 percent
• NASA: 51 percent
• Social Security Administration: 87 percent

[snip]"

Now... If the rest of America would release figures in that way it might be a little easier to get our next door neighbors to pay attention. It seems odd to me that the "shining example" (of y2k disclosure) is that clunky old federal government everyone's always complaining about (including me!). Where are the savvy conservatives when we need them? God bless 'em, but I think the impeachment crusade (that's been going on for about 4 or 5 years now) has gotten just about all of the best of them. But let's not talk about that either. Who can stand it when there are such bigger fish to fry?

Bill

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Good comments folks. There is, however, one major problem in "disclosing" Y2K compliance and it's one that has both lawyers and business people alike tied up in their knickers. There is no standard, agreed to definition of "compliance". Even percentages are misleading - partly because of the old 80/20 rule. Additionally, responsible organizations have gone through a triage process and are addressing the critical systems first. These may, in fact, be a small percentage of their total inventory (applications and embedded systems). Looking at the percentage "fixed" may give the appearance of being far behind when they may have already fixed those things that will allow them to continue to deliver goods/services/infrastructure support beyond 2000. Next come the 2nd level applications, etc.

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Hello. John's comment re looking at the percentage of fixes has prompted me to place this caveat in the discussion. Contrary to what would appear to be the logical way of proceeding with a remediation, most businesses concentrate on fixing those aspects which are the easiest and least expensive FIRST. (Billing software versus embedded chips, for instance.) The most difficult aspects of a job are often the ones done last. Therefore, when reading reports of percentages of areas fixed, it is wise not to fall into the trap of assuming a similar time frame for the remaining fixes to be done. For instance, if a business or government agency reports that it took them 1 year to become 50% compliant, you CANNOT assume it will then take just 1 more year to finish the other 50%. As a general rule, the difficult repairs take longer, and are the last to be engaged in. This can skew those percentage reports and make them appear to indicate more progress than there actually is. Part of the reasoning behind the delay of the difficult is that it's much harder to get approval from a corporation's finance officers for major expenditures than it is to get funding for smaller ones. Keep all this in mind when reading any reports, and you'll be able to assess where a business is in their remediation with more accuracy. Since the average person must deal in probabilities and guesswork anyway (unless they have direct access to the information systems section of whatever business they are concerned with) it's important to have some guidelines upon which to base your own opinion. The concept of most-difficult-saved-for-last is one of those guidelines. Good luck in your reading!

-- Anonymous, September 18, 1998

Keith:

The other site (www.y2ktimebomb.com) has an article under the "Economy" heading written by J.D. Peters ...

No article by J. D. Peters is listed in the "Economy" section there.

Could you supply a URL?

-- Anonymous, November 24, 1998

Tom (Carey), I believe the article referred to was "Social Chaos or Social Transformation" by John L. Peterson, not J.D. Peters. It was published in two parts on 7/2/1998 and 7/3/1998. It has been archived at the y2ktimebomb site and the URL is:

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Economy/Predictions/jpdep.htm

Best wishes and happy reading!

-- Anonymous, November 24, 1998