Mike Hyatt's site has an interesting editorial about Peter de Jager's new pollyanna view, telling the truth, etc.

Find at: www.michaelhyatt.com

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999

Answers

Rick-

Wrong URL or something. Can't get in.

Blessings...Mercy

-- Mercy (prepare@now.com), March 09, 1999.

This may well be an interesting article. The first page was. However, when I got to the bottom and clicked on "more" I got the conclusion of what appeared to be a different article. Anyone know where I can complete reading the De Jager article?

-- Rick (A Believer@Peace.com), March 09, 1999.

I had no problems with the URL or the article itself.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

Try hitting the "Refresh" button when you get to page 2. It's the same URL as page 2 of last week's column. If you were there last week, your browser grabs the page off your hard drive rather than downloading from the website.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

http://www.michaelhyatt.com

Didn't have problems with the link above or clicking on the "more" one in this page.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 09, 1999.

With everything being written, I'm surprised Peter de Jager has not responded directly to the speculation. Just a thought.

-- Deborah (info@wars.com), March 09, 1999.

Bill Dunn makes an interesting argument about de Jaeger's about-face where Y2K severity is concerned. Read it Roadrunner@compliant.com), March 09, 1999.

Oops. Use the one above.

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), March 09, 1999.

I hate bright red websites...too conspicuous to read at work!

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), March 09, 1999.

If you noticed, from a previous thread, DeJaeger's change of heart came after he sent an open letter to Clinton. Maybe he was promised a tax audit unless he revised...

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), March 09, 1999.

Excellent background article on what de Jager says now versus what he has said (and still says on his videos, I presume!), without any apparent basis for the change. As Dunn points out, if he misgauged the scope of Y2K in his earlier works, he should qualify that (e.g., "Turns out you don't need a year for testing, just a day -- my mistake, sorry!"). Likewise, if some new information has come to his attention that explains why things have changed, he should explain that ("And it turns out that the Y2K problem was actually solved years ago, but those $%#%#%$% CEOs and global leaders were just playing with me to make me look bad, @##$%$%!!!").

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 09, 1999.

"f you noticed, from a previous thread, DeJaeger's change of heart came after he sent an open letter to Clinton. Maybe he was promised a tax audit unless he revised... "

Since de jagger is Canadian, that seems unlikely. He has repeatedly and clearly stated why he thinks that Y2K will not be TEOTWAYKI and why his mind has been changed. Don't know why these half-baked conspiracy theories abound...

Flanagan

-- Flanagan (terry@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

OK, Flanagan, enlighten us, I guess we have all missed it. Explain how all that "broken code" got fixed. Explain why de Jagers repeated cautions that you need all of 1999 for testing and nothing else were wrong. Explain how being "aware" of a problem "solves" it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

Flanagan; Some of DeJager's businesses are US based and many of his assignments are for fees in the US. The IRS has a distinct interest in deJager's cash flow. Immigration does deter entry of persons regarded as dangerous or too critical of US leaders or government institutions. Rick; Thanks for the post.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 09, 1999.

Pay attention King:

Doomsday Avoided

by Peter de Jager

"We've finally broken the back of the Y2K problem." I've been making that statement now for about 6 months. Naturally, it has generated some interest and a handful of e-mail. The comments range from polite requests for me to state, in my own words, what exactly I mean by 'broken the back of Y2K' to the outraged rants from folks intent on selling the world panic, gold coins and plots of otherwise worthless real estate. Naturally, any good news about Y2K spoils the fun and intentions of those trying to incite panic and runs on the bank.

So? What do I mean when I state confidently we've broken the back of Y2K? In short, I mean we've overcome the largest Y2K hurdle. The Y2K problem was never the actual act of fixing the code (or the embedded systems more on that later), it was the inaction and denial regarding a problem so easily demonstrated as real and pressing, and possessing consequences far exceeding it's humble beginnings. Overcoming denial was always a larger, more complicated, difficult and frustrating task, than actually fixing broken code.

To support this perspective we have to step backwards in time a bit. It must also become very much a personal perspective and commentary.

I find it curious in the extreme that, for a long time, I was labeled with the slurs of doomsayer, fear mongerer, dread merchant and chicken little. I was labeled as an idiot, someone who didn't understand how systems were maintained and, on several occasions, my mental health was questioned. My message was always a simple one. The code is broken, I can prove it. If we don't fix it, then we face unpleasant consequences.

The key phrase here, the whole reason for my involvement with Y2K, was "IF we don't fix it."

If you actually read my articles and listen to my presentations (There are several transcripts available on the internet and on tapes both audio and video, so we do have a reliable record of my statements), rather than rely on the sometimes incredibly inaccurate quotes of the media, then you will hear that message repeated time and time again. It was repeated ad nauseum over a period of 8 years. The core message never changed. Fix this or face consequences.

The reporters who did attempt some investigative reporting in these early days were stonewalled. They asked banks if such a problem existed and were told it was either a result of a fevered imagination or was a trivial problem not worth discussing.

Was it an unnecessary message as some have suggested? Did we, myself and many many others, really have to make so much noise about Y2K, or would people have taken care of this anyway? Good question. In a perfect experiment, we'd roll the clock back 8 years and watch what happens as myself and others say and do nothing to raise the alarm. We can't do that but we can open our eyes a bit and examine our current situation.

The most widely recognized best practice on Y2K projects is 'Triage', a concept I introduced to the Y2K lexicon in an early article published in 'The American Programmer' magazine.

Consider, with no attempt at saving face, what exactly 'triage' is it's an admission we were so incompetent as an industry and we started a project so late that we didn't leave ourselves enough time to fix all the applications we were responsible for maintaining. The practice of triage is an embarrassment. It's the ultimate proof, for me at least, that raising the warning was necessary. Without our warning, the IT industry would still be asleep at the wheel.

All of the above relates to the known provable software problem. The embedded system problem was very different. The severity of this problem was a total unknown. Nobody, until fairly recently, had any real idea how big a problem it was. There was certainly no proof that the problem was either pervasive or rare, but there was sufficient evidence to suggest it was crucial, even a matter of life or death, to find out if it was real.

The proof of its existence was sitting on millions of desktops. PCs did not, for the most part, automatically roll from 1999 to 2000 without incident. Another bit of evidence was flying above our heads. The GPS satellites had a known date problem, not exactly a Y2K problem, but close enough. If we had problems both on the ground and in the heavens then the chances were pretty good we'd find them elsewhere as well. It turns out we were right.

The challenge? To get people to examine everything that might have a problem. How to do that? By creating reasonable scenarios for failure in an attempt to get people to examine embedded chips of all shapes and sizes. The result? Problems were found in medical devices, navigational aids, assembly equipment and retail equipment, to mention only a few. The good news? In some areas, very little was identified as posing problems. The bad news? The problem was real and we have to address it at great expense.

Did everything we speculated about prove to cause problems? Nope. But until we checked, nobody could say it was an unnecessary activity.

Here's a summary. Until we started to fix our code and examine the embedded system problem, then practically any doomsday scenario was a legitimate possibility.

Here's where we are today. Most, not all companies are working on this issue. They are fixing, or have fixed, their systems. They have examined, or are examining, their embedded systems problems. We are, for the most part, no longer ignoring Y2K.

Throughout all of this, my primary concern was with the Iron Triangle. The three industries which must operate daily, or very quickly society begins to unravel at the seams. They are, in no particular order; Finance, Telecommunications and Power companies.

I stopped worrying about the finance industry in 1997. The level of activity was high, the regulators were beginning to wake up, and attention was finally being paid to the problem at all levels.

None of this is meant to suggest that the finance industry is not going to have problems. There will be problems. Many of them. Each one will be handled in turn by an industry which, more than any other, understands their dependence on technology.

For the record, my money will remain in the bank. For the record, anyone who is suggesting that we take all our money out of the banks is deliberately attempting to bring about a run on the bank and can only be classified by any reasonable person as an enemy of the people.

More to the point. The finance industry is nearing completion of their task. Again, this statement does not apply to every bank. There are exceptions, exceptions which the regulators are getting ready to act upon. Nor are all countries at the same level. Those who are most dependent are further ahead; those who are less dependent, further behind. (An exception to this is Japan a country whose actions on Y2K still astound and confound me.)

Next, the telecommunications industry. My concern began to diminish about a year ago. The word back from the industry is simple enough. That which they expected to fail, fails. That which should not have failed, doesn't. It means that there have been no surprises. They do have problems. Mainly in the administrative functions of the network. Problems they can cope with by implementing workarounds. Bottom line? Dial tone is secure, but don't expect your bills on time. Any complaints?

Finally? The big bugaboo, the power industry. I wish I was as confident here as I am with the other two points of the triangle. The statements, reports and press releases from this industry are wishy washy, confusing and misleading.

On one hand, we have dozens of power stations already working in the Year 2000 by advancing their clocks. On the other hand, we have statements offering little assurance e.g. from the Canadian Electrical Association "Most entities report nothing which would have opened a circuit (cut off power)." Implying obliquely, I think, that "Some entities reported problems which did cut off power?????"

Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"

This obstacle of lawyers is evident in all industries. I know of banks, payroll companies, government agencies, insurance companies, water companies, etc., etc., etc. who have told me privately that they're done, complete, finished but cannot announce this good news because of the lawyers.

And then there is the media for whom (and this is an admitted generalization) good news is not good copy.

It is this private information, more than anything which is available in the public press, which compels me to state "we've broken the back of Y2K."

Of course, the Iron Triangle does not make up the sum total of our computer dependence. There are other industries, there are global interdependencies, and there are market issues, etc.

I haven't ignored these in my analysis. I'd like to suggest we're a bit more resilient than some would have us believe. I'd like to suggest that production processes with a long lead time, like the production of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and food, are little affected by isolated outages of a week or even a month, especially when we have ten months to go and are smart enough to increase production levels to take into account any production hiccups.

In addition I'd like to point out that there is nothing which is shipped from overseas, which could not be stockpiled for a month, in anticipation of a one month shipping delay. I'd go even further, with the exception of some pharmaceuticals, that there is nothing shipped to any country which we could not do without for a month.

Have we 'solved' Y2K? No, not entirely. But, we have avoided the doomsday scenarios. The next 12 months or so are going to be fascinating to watch. But it will not, contrary to the ravings found in some of the media reports and in many places on the internet, be TEOWAWKI. Through hard work and effort, we've broken the back of Y2K.

Yours truly, Peter de Jager March 1, 1999

-- Flanagan (terry@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

"Immigration does deter entry of persons regarded as too critical of US leaders or government institutions."

Complete paranoid nonsense.

Flanagan

-- Flanagan (terry@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

OK, Flanagan, I read what you posted (actually read it before on the www.year2000.com site). Now: Explain how all that "broken code" got fixed. Explain why de Jagers repeated cautions that you need all of 1999 for testing and nothing else were wrong. Explain how being "aware" of a problem "solves" it.

You see, all you did was just verify what we have been saying: de Jager goes on and on about how Y2K is basically no problem now, but never explains how that jives with everything he said before. Even if he would just say "I goofed, it was never that big a problem in the first place", at least that would be worth SOMETHING.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

I just listened again to an audio tape that Peter de Jager made in 1995. He stated in it that any large organization that had not already begun their Y2K project would not make it. Given that most large companies and government agencies did not get started until 1996 or ever 1997, his original assessment would have to have been way off for them to complete their fixes in time. I have never heard Peter refute his earlier statement about needing to start by 1995.

Concerning his recent change of heart, he says that awareness and acknowledgement of the problem has saved us. Peter, THE CODE STILL NEEDS FIXING AND TESTING. The proof that things are much worse than he now says that they are is that we have less than 10 months to go and almost no large company or government agency has be certified as Y2K-compliant.

-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

The denial is coming on strong. As Cory says, How much warning do you need?

-- a (a@a.a), March 09, 1999.

*"Immigration does deter entry of persons regarded as too critical of *US leaders or government institutions." *Complete paranoid nonsense.

*Flanagan

maybe see FBI VS. JOHN ONO LENNON

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000aVl

-- Paul's grandfather (Jerkenbeck@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

Wrong link, should be

http://www.instantkarma.com/fbibkg.html

-- Paul's grandfather (Jerkenbeck@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

Peter de Jager's open letter to President Clinton...

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2kclinton.html

...from November 17, 1998.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 09, 1999.

I have a good friend who is a leader in y2k problem fixing, and he tells me that there will be no problem with power or other important matters.

I have met a number of people who claim to be in on what is going on at their Fortune 500 employer, and that it's all been taken care of.

I understand why the attorneys advise their clients not to make claims which will not benefit the clients. And I don't blame them.

But isn't this matter too important for people to trust unsubstantiated assurances?

Somebody! Show me some evidence that we needn't worry! Until then, shut up.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), March 09, 1999.

This can't-say-anything-because-of-Duh-Lawyers stuff is silly. Last Oct 19, the "Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure Act" became law. Any organization that honestly believes that it is ready for 2000 can say so and not fear litigation if it turns out that they are wrong. (Obviously, the Act will not protect anyone from intentionally lying or fraudulent acts.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 09, 1999.

Interesting premise:

"...The Y2K problem was never the actual act of fixing the code (or the embedded systems more on that later), it was the inaction and denial regarding a problem so easily demonstrated as real and pressing, and possessing consequences far exceeding it's humble beginnings. Overcoming denial was always a larger, more complicated, difficult and frustrating task, than actually fixing broken code."

He states that his mission has always been to solve what he defines as the key Y2K problem: inaction and denial. Given this definition, I would agree that, at least in the US and Canada, he is correct in his conclusion that the biggest problem is solved. While there has been and continues to be a fair amount of denial and inaction, Y2K has the attention of the vast majority of US companies, and they are spending lots of time and energy on it.

Now the question:

Flanagan, do you agree with de Jager's premise? Do you agree that the biggest problem with Y2K is denial and inaction, and that addressing those has therefore "broken the back" of the issue. If so, why?

I do not agree with this premise, as you might imagine, but I'd be very interested in your comments.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), March 09, 1999.

Mac- anyone who agrees with that is offering himself up as a LIVING CASE STUDY in Y2K denial.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 09, 1999.

Jack Sprat says: "This can't-say-anything-because-of-Duh-Lawyers stuff is silly."

You got that right, brother. If any major corporation was completely y2k-compliant, they would be shouting it from the roof tops. Why? Competitive advantage. Increased sales and market share. Increased stock price.

The reason they're not announcing that they're done, is not because of nervous lawyers. It's because they ain't close to being done yet.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

The code was/is broken. The code that has been remediated won't, by and large, be production tested. Almost nothing is being audited and what is shows huge gaps between PR and reality. End of story. Game's up.

The only mildly fresh aspect here is that the Hyatt site is picking up on the same blatant contraditions many of us have discussed.

Re their speculation: de Jager is either a phony or a liar is what it seems to come down to. Either way, he has completely sacrificed any claim to professionalism or integrity. End of that story too.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 09, 1999.

Mac said: Now the question: Flanagan, do you agree with de Jager's premise? Do you agree that the biggest problem with Y2K is denial and inaction, and that addressing those has therefore "broken the back" of the issue. If so, why? Yes I do. The fact that the amount of attention and resources devoted to the problem has increased exponentially, increases my belief that we will not allow this to defeat us. I work in the Y2K industry - 16 months ago I was frightened to death. Most of the companies I work with had not finished their assesment stage (First stage) and the problem did not seem to grip senior mangement as it should.

Now, many of these companies are completely compliant, with most at least having their mission systems compliant. Senior management understands the issue and I believe that de Jager is completely correct in his statements. Did he overstate the problem initially? I think he did and he should admit it publicly. What I do not understand is why his point of view is so unpopular here. Everyone liked him when he was a doom and gloomer, now that his warnings have been taken to heart and it appears that important industries will be compliant, he is referred to as a fraud and pollyanna. Y2K is not a religion. It is a problem. It can be fixed. Flanagan

-- Flanagan (terry@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

Dear Flanagan,

As I say, we want more than unsubstantiated reassurances.

Name one major company which is already completely compliant.

It appears to me that the religious faith is that of those who believe that the problem has been fixed.

Show me the money.

By the way, in re-reading my post, I hope that no one thinks that my exuberant "Shut up" was meant to be an insult to those posting here. I apologize to anyone who took it that way. I just mean, "Put up or shut up". All of the putting up seems to be done by the pessimists. I don't see the optimists offering anything to examine and verify.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), March 09, 1999.

Flanagan; I wonder if "paranoid" was meant as an insult or a compliment. In any event, just one of many examples of my former statement, a Canadian called Pierre Elliot Trudeau was an outspoken critic of the US and not admitted by Immigration for some time until he became their Prime Minister. Admission to the US is very important to Mr. deJager.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 09, 1999.

de Jager suddenly realised that all the money he has been making could be lost in a bank run. Recently he purchased a cabin in the woods but he did say it was not a y2k related purchase. Probably just wants a place to hold pollyanna parties.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), March 09, 1999.

"Flanagan; I wonder if "paranoid" was meant as an insult or a compliment. In any event, just one of many examples of my former statement, a Canadian called Pierre Elliot Trudeau was an outspoken critic of the US and not admitted by Immigration for some time until he became their Prime Minister. Admission to the US is very important to Mr. deJager. "

The implication here is that de Jager changed his tune in order to enter our wonderful country. No wonder the rest of the world views us as arrogant assholes. You do have a smidgen of proof for this foolish supposition, do you not?

-- Flanagan (terry@hotmail.com), March 09, 1999.

"Did he [de Jager] overstate the problem initially? I think he did and he should admit it publicly." -- Flanagan

Ok, well at least you are in agreement that de Jager needs to offer some kind of explanation for his about face, and such an explanation would probably go a long way towards healing de Jager's credibility, which is quite tarnished at this point.

However, regardless, the code is still broken, it still needs fixing, and it won't be by the time that it needs to be. Maybe the end result will indeed be just a bump in the road. Maybe it will be the end of the world as we know it. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 09, 1999.

MR fLANIGIMININGAN!!!!! why do YOU shOw SUCh chILDisH NAIveTe????? DER uS. aUF A IST veRY CArefUL WHo isT in, Und, WHo isT AUs!!!!! WHy cannOt yOu sEE THIS????? IDioT!!!!! DIEtER WAS GIVEn maNY TEstS TO COmplETE BEfoRe diETer was aLLoweD IN, IS thAT NOT trUE?????? TOuCH DER NOSE wIt hEAD baCK!!!!! WAlK TOE To toE!!!! DO yoU SEE hOw toUgH thIS WAs????? IS wAs veRy cloSe, yeS?????? DIeTeR wAS ADMittED ONLy bECauSE DIEtER COuLD SIng tHe "WILLy wonKa uMPAH LOomPAh sOng"!!!!! caN DejaGEr siNg thAT??????? HuH??? WeLL????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 09, 1999.

Flanagan -

Good to hear from someone doing the work. Some stats, if you will. No need to name the companies, just give us an idea.

- Industry of company (e.g., manufacturing, insurance, aerospace, finance, etc.) - LOC in scope - Budget (in $M) - Date assessment complete - Date remediation (inc. unit testing) complete - Date integration testing complete - Lessons Learned (if any have been circulated yet)

My employer's Y2K work is held up as a model for other Y2K projects, but we're still sweating this 3 year, 4M LOC remediation. Final integration testing starts this month and won't complete until June (if then). My experiences elsewhere (and industry metrics) tell me that many organizations, some very important, will not do such a good job. Would, however, like to hear about some projects that are succeeding.

As I stated in another thread, if we have a "Pareto result", that's 80% success, but also means 1 company in 5 missing the deadline. That cannot be seen as anything like a good result.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), March 09, 1999.

"Paul Revere Does About Face"

http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/dejager.htm

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 13, 1999.