The GAO posted regular documents all of 1998 until Nov. 6, then nothing. Either their not meeting with agencies or the news is too bad to share.

-- James Chancellor (publicworks1@bluebonnet.net), February 03, 1999

Answers

I noticed that too.. It is odd. Week after week, month after month report after report on Y2K and now... silence. Very odd indeed.

-- me (justme@aol.com), February 03, 1999.

Not surprising.....reference back to this Wired article on 26 Jan on Fed Spin control. In this case "spin" is defined as "blackout". Willie and the boys hard at work....

http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/ytwok/story/17527.html

-- abcdGoldfish (mnoGoldfish@osar.com), February 03, 1999.

Yo, Declan. Take a break from watching Microsoft tapdance around the faked tape and "Prodigy mistake" and help us bird-dog the GAO blackout, willya? Perhaps could serve as penance for your defense of that TIME piece of fertilizer...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), February 03, 1999.

Too bad you didn't care for it.

It's incorrect to say GAO has intentionally been silent. First, some of the more recent documents not posted on the Y2K portion of the web site reference Y2K. Second, the GAO is a creature of Congress, and generally acts on Congressional requests, which have not been frequent recently for a number of reasons including the new session and the holidays. Third, you may see some released Friday.

BTW the correct name is the General Accounting Office.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com), February 03, 1999.

Thanks Declan,

Appreciate the response.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 03, 1999.

Yes, thank you for the prompt response. And no, I did not care for the article, for reasons documented at length in other threads.

Onward.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), February 03, 1999.

Don't forget Willemsen's testimony on Jan 20. That pretty much gives you the GAO's current outlook on things, I would assume.

http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/hearings/testimony/990120jw.htm

(I'd hotlink it, but the directions for doing so are on my PC at work, and I'm at home at the moment, & I haven't memorized them yet)

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), February 04, 1999.

Thank you Drew.

I found something I had been looking for in your web reference. ###############snip from http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/hearings/testimony/990120jw.htm ########### As chart 1 illustrates, in May 1997, OMB reported that about 21 percent of the mission-critical systems (1,598 of 7,649) for the 24 major departments and agencies were Year 2000 compliant. Eighteen months later, OMB reported that, as of mid-November 1998, 4,069 of the 6,696 mission-critical systems in their current inventories, or about 61 percent, were compliant. ################snip#############

I had been looking for evidence that the "mission critical systems" had been re-classified. I have seen government agencies use this tactic in many other instances where the "numbers" had to look good on paper. The lowering of mission critical systems gives them a higher overall percentage of accomplishment in the tasks involved, even though less "work" has been accomplished.

Thanks again for the link.

-- Mr_Kennedy (y2kPCfixes@motivatedseller.com), February 04, 1999.

Mr K,

Yardeni's latest report has the whole shebang on the changing number of mission-critical systems over the last 2 years.

Link (you'll have to cut & paste, sorry- I'm at home again):

http://www.yardeni.com/public/y_19990125.pdf

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), February 05, 1999.