At the public Y2k informational meeting held in July in Rockford, IL, I forwarded the question of what is the legal difference between "Y2k compliant" and "Y2k ready" to the panel spokespeople, specifically aiming at the utilities (ComEd and NiCor, who claim to be "Y2k Ready"). I received no answers back from the utility spokesmen, but one other city spokesman said the two terms have basically the same meaning.

I know this is not the case! Based on the little I've read, "Compliance" legally means a higher state of preparedness than "readiness". Can someone shed light on this and direct me to the proper information sources for the exact definition of terms? I believe the general public needs to know the difference! Thank you.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

Answers

Straight from the NEI/NUSMG definitions, which is what ComEd defintely uses, and what NICor may or may not use:

Y2k Compliant- Computer systems or applications that accurately process date/ time data (including but not limited to, calculating, comparing, and sequencing) from, into and between the twentieth and twenty first centuries, the years 1999-2000 and leap year calculations.

Y2k Ready- A computer system or application that has been determined to be suitable for continued use into the year 2000 even though the computer system or application is not fully Y2k Compliant.

Essentially, the difference- Y2k Compliant- Technical Decision Y2k Ready-to make it compliant- business decision.

For example- A data collection computer spits data to paper every 30 minutes. That computer performs no calculations based on time, other than a 30 minute counter to print the data. The computer also prints system time/ date on the print out. The computer fails to roll over to 2000, but continues to produce the correct data, spits it out every 30 minutes, but tags it 1900. This item is not Y2k compliant because it doesn't accurately process date/ time data into 2000.

So what. Any individual can look at the print out and determine the date is NOT 1900.

This is where Ready comes in.

Is it worth remidiating that computer for, say, roughly $10K (for argument's sake), when the data does nothing other than provide information, which is still correct and the person using it can differentiate between 1900 and 2000? NO. It's a business decision.

Since that item is suitable for use in 2000, but not compliant, you call it Y2k Ready and move on. Maybe fix it later, replace it later, but for now it's Ready.

Hope that clears it up, and remember, the guys who show up from the companies to these meetings are not technical, which is short sighted at best by the company.

TM

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

with the little problem that day of week name and number does not match btwn 1900 and 2000, and a lot of similar derivative data. If this data is digitally used elsewhere other snafus will happen. the simple system that you describe is a laugh, not even close to mission critical, Y2kaput is a better description for it.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

TM,

I thought that was a very good answer and example.

Monty,

It's not a laugh at all. This example could easily be part of a mission critical system. If the data is required to function, it must be available, even if the date on it is wrong. From what I gather posted here, about electric utilities, it is agreed that there will be some data recording systems that will do exactly what TM is saying. They will produce accurate information *except* for the date. So, they will not be *compliant*, but they will be *ready* to supply information that is required. Of course, if these same devices were feeding that date into other devices that needed a correct date to function, then there would be a problem. But in the example used there is only a nuisance problem. The SSA (Social Security) which was "supposed" to be compliant, sent out 32,000 letters of benefit termination last month with the date of 1/1/1900 on them. The information in the letter was correct. The date was not. So the SSA may indeed by ready right now, but they are certainly not compliant, yet! And this points up another problem for the firm that is ready, but not compliant. The SSA could expect at least 32,000 phone calls and letters from confused recipients. This will cause telephone overload and rattled replies from the hard working customer service departments. If enough of that starts to happen, and keeps happening for months on end, well you get the picture.

-- Anonymous, September 21, 1999

A service or organisation cannot be compliant but ready.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999

Factfinder straightened me out on this some time ago. He says systems/programs/computers are compliant or not and companies are ready or not. My definition of both after the rollover will be, did it all work or not? I really won't care which one failed; it will still be dark or not, the heat will be on or not, and the kitchen stove will work or not.

-- Anonymous, September 23, 1999

Brian, T.M.s definitions are what we used as well. As usual, Marcella misquotes me.

Please keep in mind that often the press, some company PR departments, and others frequently use these terms interchangeably, which is not correct.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, September 23, 1999

Factfinder, you said, "As usual, Marcella misquotes me." Did you notice those two little marks at the top of the capital "A" and at the top of the end letter "e" in the sentence before this one? Those little marks mean that you are writing the actual words of a person. I was not quoting you in my above post, I was summarizing. You actual words, notice those little marks, were: "When talking about Companies, however, the term 'Y2K Compliant' is generally not used, since a company is not 'software' - company may have Y2K Compliant mission critical systems, but it is still just 'ready' for Y2K, the company itself will not 'properly process dates prior to, during the rollover, and after Jan. 1, 2000'." "Companies are either ready for y2k or they are not, hence the term Y2K Ready or Y2K Readiness is typically used."

Your typical way out when you are cornered is to make a joke, and/or say the person has misquoted you, and/or say or imply the person doesn't understand.

You applied these same methods to my comments on my thread, "IBM, Factfinder, Me..." I have responded to those comments from you on the appropriate thread.

You can dish it out, but when it is your turn to properly defend your stance, you weasel out with these lame reasons to try to discredit the person asking the tough questions. And then, you can always throw in a "LOL" to more thoroughly confuse the readers. Not behavior becoming to a professional in my book, but then we can't be sure you are one, can we?

-- Anonymous, September 24, 1999

Gordon

I said: If this data is digitally used elsewhere other snafus will happen.

Human interpretation is not the problem, It is misinterpretation by computers that is the essence of the Y2k problem. That is why the print out example that you give does not even register as a problem. But a log analyzer that digitally takes in that data and spits out reports based on that will give strange results if not fixed. Does the software understand 00 as 1900 or 2000? can humans tell what date is 02/03/04?

-- Anonymous, September 24, 1999

Marcella,

Good for you, and I like your definition better - it either works or it doesn't. Splitting hairs in this y2k argument is not useful. I thought the paper and date was an appropot example, if correct.

Let's try to make another example, using the NERC criteria - you have a car - if it starts and runs on all 8 cylinders, it is y2k compliant, if it runs on 6 of the 8 cylinders it is y2k ready, if it doesn't start at all it's y2k ready, because you have it scheduled to go to the mechanic for repairs on 15 Dec.

Fact finder's arguments in this particular case remind me of one of his old argments that often other errors are created when fixing y2k problems, but when the system crashes because of these other errors, then it is not a y2k problem.

No Factfinder - I don't have an exact quote for this right now, but you did once make such an argument on this forum.

xBob

-- Anonymous, September 25, 1999