IEEE TAB Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group

-- Anonymous, September 28, 1999

Answers

Three months to rollover left to go and this just comes out. Sigh. I understand why you just put the link here, Lane. There's so much of interest a person could copy portions and copy and copy...

I think this section of the IEEE Technical Statement should be excerpted here, however: [I have capitalized those portions which were italicized in the original since my HTML is at an infant level.]

"The underlying 'reason for the problem with the problem'is that not ANYbody can realistically answer ANY of the following questions with ANY degree of QUANTITATIVE specificity or certainty:

*"WHICH systems of WHAT type in WHICH economic sectors and applications are MOST at risk?"

*"How MANY of those systems (in WHICH locations) will be identified far enough in advance?"

*"How MANY such systems problems' will be completely, correctly and effectively resolved?"

*"WHAT critical infrastructure systems, if any, will fail partially, or completely, and WHEN?"

*"HOW BAD will the overall impact become, as each system's failures cascade upon another's?"

*"HOW LONG will be the actual total duration of the various impacts, from fatal to inconvenient?"

"Ultimately, the 'reason for the reason for the problem with the problem' is that the predictors don't have the tools or techniques to evaluate the many intricate risk factors clearly, consistently, or measurably. It is arguable that we don't even share one consistent conceptual framework under which to classify any information gathered, or even a single consistent base of terminology; one set of common definitions to compare and contrast or even describe and discuss the distinct parameters that could clarify the issues. Without such a common conceptual basis to SHARE information rationally -- let alone a common MECHANISM to exchange the information in the first place or a common METHODOLOGY to evaluate it -- the entire technical community's best available estimate of the problem is no more valid (or invalid)than any individual's best guess."

So we have the IEEE's opinion that "the entire technical community's best available estimate of the problem is no more valid (or invalid) than any individual's best guess." Nice way to reaffirm that "nobody knows for sure what will happen", and this from an organization of engineers.

The paper goes on to say that the Most Probable Distribution of Failure is Intermediate but they even add to that, "In ABSOLUTE QUALITATIVE terms -- the exact NUMBER of instances of each degree of severity -- it is no more provably valid than the existing distribution of best guesses."

I did wonder after reading the title, IEEE Contributions To Mitigating The "Y2K Pandemic", if the IEEE can claim the first use of the term "Pandemic" in describing the Year 2000 problem in a technical paper.

Thanks, Lane, for posting this. I will reiterate to readers my opinion that it's better to be prepared than complacent.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 1999

I've read this three times. And challenge me if you believe me to be wrong, however, after reading everything I have been able to get my hands on, writing letters and pestering the government for the past year, it pretty well doesn't surprise me and sums up what I have firmly come to believe - no one really knows what the heck lies ahead of us as a result of this mess, and that's not going to change much in the next few months, regardless of what gets accomplished. I've certainly encountered a wide variety of strong opinions both on and off the net, from various areas of expertise, and I believe many are sincere in their conclusions regardless of any motives, however we are oftentimes motivated to believe what we want to believe by our circumstances, lifestyles, workplace, etc.

-- Anonymous, September 28, 1999

Dale Wray sent me the URL yesterday. Yes, there's an awful lot (and in PDF files, too).

BTW, he mentioned that the Open Letter to Congress in June was written as it was because they wanted to get across that the "we're done, no problem, sit back and relax" messages from businesses are "bogus" for the most part, but they figured that simply coming out and saying so ("asserting bogosity outright", as he put it) would not go over well with the politicians, and that's not IEEE's style anyway.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 1999

Lane, I had thought "the Open Letter to Congress in June was written as it was" because it was submitted specifically to support the pending Y2K Act to limit corporate liability big time. I have often wondered what prompted the Open Letter (how much arm twisting by Silicon Valley, for instance) since I hadn't seen IEEE in the forefront on the Y2K issue prior to that.

I think organizations like IEEE blew a potential leadership role. With the money being spent (which will eventually and largely unnecessarily be passed along to us consumers), and the reliance in many cases on type testing, I would have hoped that the trade and professional orgs would have performed the necessary testing several years ago to devise a plan for how their industries could most efficiently and inexpensively complete their remediation. It would have had the added benefit of increased public confidence.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 1999

You're right, Brooks. By "written as it was" I meant, not the purpose or intention, but the method and the style.

-- Anonymous, September 29, 1999