This material pasted from www.russkelly.com See that site for other experts' assessments, a number of which have darkened.

Ed Yourdon

(May 1999): "My May 1999 ranking is 7 to 9 . Factors that have influenced my personal assessment: (a) The FY99, Eurocurrency, April 1, and April 9 glitches have apparently been small enough, and "containable" enough (so far) that it makes me think that perhaps a slightly larger percentage of Y2K glitches and bugs will also be containable -- i.e., they'll exist, and they'll cause a loss of productivity and perhaps a loss of revenue for the companies that experience them, but perhaps the public won't be aware of them. (b) With each passing day, more people become aware of the Y2K risks and begin carrying out some form of preparation, (c) the upbeat PR "spin" is intensifying, which creates a greater degree of dangerous complacency, and a decision by many folks NOT to prepare for any disruptions. And (d), the prognosis for small companies, small companies, and small countries does not seem to have improved at all in recent months."

"Bottom line: rather than becoming more well-defined, the Y2K situation seems to have grown murkier, and more confused, in recent weeks -- particularly because it appears that the bombardment of PR messages is distracting our attention away from all of the problems that probably won't be fixed in time. I'd like to think that a larger percentage of the public is now becoming sufficiently aware of Y2K to make preparations to get through the disruptions with less chaos, but I'm also concerned that really serious problems are being swept under the rug. Hence my decision to express my ranking as a somewhat broader range..."

(February 1999): "Depending on whether the 46 states make their July 1, 1999 FY rollover successfully or not, I would expect my assessment to either drop to 8.0 again, or rise to 9.0."

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999

Answers

I'm wagering that before the Senate Ed will want to discuss the dangers of complacency which inhibits personal preparation. After all, from a macro standpoint, it's really irrelevant whether some people prepare for one year or a century. The question is what will the masses do? This is a problem of scale. The problem is whether you can get the masses to prepare for two weeks. That would be an absolutely phenomenal task. Pardon the blunt language, but only an absolute idiot would limit preparations to three days, based on the public information that you and I have read. Unfortunately, most people have no access or inclination to inform themselves. It's up to Congress.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999.

"Unfortunately, most people have no access or inclination to inform themselves. It's up to Congress. "

The problem is that even if Congress did inform the public, most people would be to apathetic to do anything anyway. Most that do know about it are already are assuming that "they" are taking care of it.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999.

The masses cannot prepare for anything like two weeks. First of all they are asleep. They started to stir earlier in the year and have quickly gone back to a sound sleep, with the help of the PR lullaby. Second, many people live week to week, paycheck to paycheck, some handout to handout. As I have posted before, the Government is between a rock and a hard place on this one. Perception management to them is job numero uno. As far as the testimony, its wait and see, like so many other things with Y2K.

Just as we have already watched other dates come and go, so too will we be watching 7/1.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), May 18, 1999.

Clyde, it is possible that "they" are taking care of it. They are allowing some of their darker discussions onto the internet. See for example the Naval War college and "elite" threads from yesterday.

If their war games include Thunderdome scenarios, and it appears that they do, then they would naturally include some ClubFed gymnasium and tent cities with gruel and SOS cafeterias. The current reticence would then be for the purpose of preventing any bank runs until close upon the rollover when bank holidays are politically feasible. This will also allow the status quo in the financial markets so that the strong can unwind or hedge their positions. It's also possible that the stock exchanges could take holidays or emergency "curbs" in late December

The "holiday" tool is simply not politically available this far from the event, so panic, if it is to occur, must occur late to serve the purposes of the financial markets.

This is not how I would handle things if I were in control, but I think these considerations are in the mix of thoughts in Washington and New York.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999.

The problem, as I see it, is that the public will try to prepare for a two week disruption--only they will try to do it late in the year, perhaps after Christmas.

Gift-returning will be turned into a melee. How do you exchange a tie for a water filter? It won't be pretty.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 18, 1999.

Getting back to the subject head: "Ed Yourdon Shifts Outlook to Include Possible '9'", it's a rather myopic and convienent interpretation to say "a number" other the experts assessments found at www.russkelly.com have "darkened."

Taking into account all of the "experts" found on Russ Kelly's site, of the 24 queried each month, only four of the originals, Joe Boivin, Karl Feilder, Russ Kelly and Roleigh Martin have increase their Y2k severity projections from their initial posts. (Add new posters Dr. Gordon and Timothy Wilbur and you have six).

Those who have improved their projections in the last three months include noted analysts Douglas Carmichael, Dr. Scott Olmstead, Alan Simpson, and rather surprisingly, at least in my view, Harlan Smith. There are others as well, but these four have been on the forefront of this issue for years and their more hopeful observations are worthy of equal consideration.

As for Mr. Yourdon, it should also be noted that his porjection moved from an 8.5 in April to anything from a "7 to 9" a month later. So it's only fair to consider the possibility of a "7" along with that "9".

Having said this, understand that I post this as an issue of fair play and it is not intended to reflect my personal view of the otcome of Y2k. I'm sure many, like myself, who frequent Russ's "what the experts think", come away with the mixed emotions of hope and concern after viewing the collective impressions of this group that is gracious enough to ponder openly.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

8.2
7.4
10
6
7.1
8.5
7.5
7
9
7.2
7
6
8.9
7.25
3
10
8
2.75
4.5
6
5.8
9.2
8
1

Average is a 6.9. Let's call it a 7 and go to bed.

-- a (a@a.a), May 19, 1999.

Let's look not only to the states, but also to corporations. And be sure to factor in embedded systems...

How about calling it an 8.3?

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), May 19, 1999.

I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE FOCUS ON FISCAL YEAR END. IF THEY ARE USING OLD RELIABLE SYSTEMS, THEY CAN CHANGE THE FISCAL TO CALENDER TO DELAY ANY PROBLEMS. AND CACULATE THE FISCAL ACCOUNTING MANUALLY.

RIGHT?

-- Arthur Washington (ARTWASH@webtv.net), May 19, 1999.

The numbers do not mean anything, "a", except in their relation to the analysts' previous post. The survey was set up to monitor progress more so than to guage the severity of Y2k.

When comparing Russ Kelly's new ranking of 8.9 with his "20 most likely events," you'll find Kelly anticipating things more "back to normal" by the end of 2000. And although these event scenarios have not been updated since Janaury, Kelly's was at 8.7 at that point in the survey. Clearly conventional projection in the "8-9" range do not have things being "normal" by the end of next year.

The best indicator drawn from these numbers is to add all the posts that have updated consistently and compare them to the previous monthly aggregate of those posts. Then you can derive a better idea of whether the group as a whole perceives things getter better or worse.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

Hiway, Is "6" not a number? Remember those "experts" who are already at 10 presumably cannot get any darker. I guess they could go to 11; "instant spontaneous combustion of all life forms."

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 19, 1999.

Is the fiscal rollover for 46 states July 1st? I have been thinking it was October.

-- preparing (central@ohio.com), May 19, 1999.

Preparing: states = July feds = October

-- Charles R. (chuck_roast@trans.net), May 19, 1999.

Puddintame, we could argue that "a number" means a "significant amount" and that six of 22 is not a significant amount. Then we could argue the definition of "significant." This really isn't my point. If you choose the dwell on the negative aspects of the survey, that is certainly your preogitive. But unless you accept the "10" scenario as likely, Y2k cannot be considered in the narrow view. There is "a number" of analysts who view the outcome more positively, and that is worthy of consideration.

Personally, the views probably cancel each other out, leaving us with the uncertainity that comes with thinkng we have a handle on this six days out of the week, and waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat on the seventh, fearing there's little hope.

Note: In response to your "10" experts comment, I discount the views of both North and Zvegintoz in this survey, since North started in his immovable positon of "10" and Zvegintoz apprarently is headed for less than zero. The only ones I consider are the ones that will and have moved, of which there is now one "10", Boivin.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

Spelling doesn't count on "Jeopardy." I hope it doesn't count here, either.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

Perhaps it all boils down to ... what can "they" keep hidden ... so we NEVER know ... and what blows the lid ... in a local area ... and hits the front pages?

Stay tuned.

I try to look at the Y2K issues as either economic in nature or life- threatening. What's mission critical for people? The basics that support lives ... or destroy them.

"Accidents" concern me.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

Actually, this sort of reminds me of some thoughts i've been having re Prep. I've noticed, of course, the scarcity of items such as alladin lanterns and mantles and those sorts of things.And the tremendous run on places such as lehmans, real goods and the like, all due to Y2k. Now this increased demand for product is only attributable to the small perecentage of the population that actually "gets it" in some fashion. And this increased demand by only a small fraction of the population has been enough to literally swamp the market for this stuff. A market which previously only served off-the -grid types such as myself, and those who believed in stocking up on a regular basis- Mormons and such.

If the population as a whole were to suddently "get it"; if the government were to stop the PR spin on the "bump in the road 3 day storm" sort; how would this population of new GI's ever manage to stock up and prepare at this date? would there even be enough flashlights and batteries for every family in the US to have one? Just wondering.......

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), May 19, 1999.

I thought anything higher than a "4" was world crises level bad and "8" to "10" was a mad max senario with paul davis and y2k pro whoreing themselves for food?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.