Dear Mr. Decker,

I just came across your new thread on TB2K.

Paraphrasing or quoting out of context can easily result in changing the intended meaning and intention of the words that are paraphrased or quoted. In this case, what I wrote you was the best way I knew to respond in a quick and courteous way to the e-mail you sent me on 7/29/2000 (I am sending along a copy of that response.)

Earlier today, before seeing your new thread, I sent the attached posting to GICC (Attachment 2). I am sending it along in case it might help clarify for you what my current thinking is concerning what has happened and what is happening regarding Y2K-related problems, particularly those problems involving complex integrated systems.

I wish you well in your efforts to get to the bottom on the mysteries that surround Y2K, particularly those mysteries that pertain to facts about what has happened and what is happening. In this case the place to look for answers is with the relatively small number of persons who have hands-on expertise assessing and addressing the complex integrated systems problems that have been occurring as a result of Y2K. These problems are of a kind that are not readily assessed and addressed. Individuals with such expertise with whom I have communicated are aware of higher than normal incidence of problems that are currently occurring in a variety of different sectors. These experts are also aware of efforts to keep such information concerning such problems from becoming public. Some additional views and references concerning these and related developments are in Attachment 2.

I hope this helps refocus the discussion on the facts of what has happened and what is happening.

Sincerely,

Paula Gordon

Attachment 1

Dear Mr. Decker,

Thank you for your note.

I am grateful that I live in a free country where individuals are entitled to their own opinions, where they are free to pursue the truth as they see it and to speak the truth as they perceive that truth to be. I am particularly grateful for the freedom to act on the truth as I see it.

I wish you well in your pursuits.

Sincerely,

Paula Gordon

Attachment 2

July 31, 2000 posting

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003a0s

Dear Questioning:

The GICC Sysops posted about twenty-two "for the archives" postings on high hazard sectors and problem areas on July 21, 2000. They can be found by clicking on the various GICC categories (the list of topics is on the bottom of the GICC "Top Level" page). As an example, one of these postings focuses on "Fires and Explosions" and can be found at

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003W0O.

Most of the "for the archives" postings are compilations of information and postings concerning problems that have been identified since the beginning of the year. Some of the postings reference comparative analyses of the higher than normal incidence of problems occurring in various high hazard sectors during comparable time frames in prior years.

Perhaps a list of all of the "for the archives" postings can be put in one place or under an additional heading for a new topic such as "For the Archives". I plan to compile such a list. When I do, I will be sure to post it to GICC. Perhaps, it would be an easy matter for the Sysops to compile a list of the twenty-two postings on this thread as well as on a separate thread. I don't know if you saw any of these postings, but I think you will find that they represent at least a beginning effort to identify sources and compilations of information concerning what has been going on. In some cases, analyses are included.

GICC seems to be the best place remaining on the web dedicated to gathering and reporting information on infrastructure problems some of which either are or could be related to malfunctioning Y2K-related IT and/or embedded systems. It constitutes a considerable resource provided as a public service through MIT and greenspun.com and through the volunteer efforts of all those involved administering the site and posting to it. I am personally grateful to all those involved.

Regarding ongoing efforts to understand what has happened and what is happening regarding Y2K problems, I posted the following comments on another website on 5/12/2000:

"...The Y2K story at this point in time seems to me to be much more like a Sherlock Holmes mystery than an Alfred Hitchcock thriller however. Even so, I think the Y2K story has more layers than any mystery. That makes it very hard to share the story with others. It certainly cannot be done in sound bites. There is too much about what has happened and what is happening that boggles the mind. Long explanations with lots of background and information has to be provided. This takes time, patience, interest, and openmindedness.

It helps, I think, to have the disposition of sleuth. Figuring out what happened and what is happening with Y2K can best be approached deductively, searching out pieces of the puzzle and piecing together evidence, including circumstantial evidence. Just when the most important pieces seem to be in place, some new information or insight surfaces and modifies the emerging picture. Sherlock Holmes would be working overtime on this case.

Even those with the mind of a sleuth are likely to find it difficult to believe that hardly anyone in Washington or anyone with any connection to the media is tracking the problems that could well be caused by embedded systems problems.

Another aspect of this situation that will be difficult for many to grasp is that hardly anyone who knows about the embedded systems problems or who knows about the ways in which they can malfunction seems to be sharing that knowledge with anyone, including persons in roles of responsibility. In addition, those who understand or are in a position to understand the implications of the tangible, if often circumstantial evidence involving unusually high numbers of uncommon problems in a variety of high risk sectors are not tending to share their understanding and their concerns either. That may all yet change.

Until it does, we are left with some significant concerns:

1) the world has sunk billions into minimizing the impact of Y2K and while worst case scenarios have thankfully been averted, few seem to recognize that the job that was started is not really finished yet and 2) if we fail with Y2K to involve those with technical expertise in all phases of assessing and addressing the complex technical problems including having an appropriate role in making sure that the job is completed, what a poor precedent we will be setting for other equally complicated and daunting problems already at our doorstep.

***

Some other more extensive comments can be found on the web at the following sites:

"John Koskinen's Responses to Questions from Paula Gordon Concerning National and Global Aspects of Y2K", see http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/Q&A.html

For a video of April 12, 2000 Panel Program at GW University: "Y2K: What Happened and What Has Been Happening Since January 1?", see http://www.stuarthrodman.com/video.htm For a summary of Paula Gordon's slide presentation, see http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Grassroots %20Information%20Coordination%20Center%20%28GICC%29

The most recent in the series of briefing/brainstorming sessions at George Washington University on Y2K was held on Tuesday, July 11. (The next session is scheduled for Tuesday, September 12. Details are on the announcements page of my website at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon.)

A primary focus of that session was some newly shared information concerning what is going on behind the scenes. It turns out that according to a number of persons with hands-on expertise in the field, Y2K/embedded systems problems involving integrated systems are very much with us and are becoming more evident with the passage of time. Owing to liability, absence of focus, threats of dismissal, bottomline and market concerns, the political incorrectness of mentioning Y2K problems, and other factors, it appears that information concerning such problems is not getting out. Y2K/embedded systems problems seem to be unfolding in slow motion and only a very few people appear to be inclined or able to identify them and fewer still seem interested in openly tracking, assessing, or addressign them. Few seem willing to talk about what is happening. No one that I have been able to identify in the Federal government has responsibility for tracking, assessing, and addressing such ongoing problems.

Given present circumstances, including high levels of disinterest, absence of expertise, absence of resources, and failure to assign responsibility, potential long term scenarios that could evolve are cause for some concern. For instance, it would be possible for a scenario of mid-range impact on the impact scale to evolve. In such a scenario more and more problems could become evident while little in the way of expertise and resources were directed to tracking, assessing, and addressing the underlying causes of the problems. One possible consequence of such failures is the detrimental impact that they can have on public health and safety or the environment.

Two other possible consequences that can follow from a failure to acknowledge or address the underlying causes of problems include the following:

~ only the most obvious symptoms might be addressed when a failure occurs or a malfunction becomes apparent, meaning that the problem may recur again and again until the underlying cause is finally addressed OR

~ costly equipment and systems might have to be replaced in its entirety, obviously a very costly proposition.

Such possible consequences could have been avoided had remediation efforts been completed or had repairs been done that were based on an understanding of the actual or possible causes of the problems.

At the June 12 meeting at GW, communications with engineers familiar with Y2K-related integrated systems problems were reported on and discussed along with suggestions for initiatives. As the developments that were discussed are sensitive in nature (jobs and careers can be at stake), particular care must be taken in publicly reporting them. I hope to be posting some general information about these developments in the next few months.

Meanwhile, I continue to communicate with officials behind the scenes, even though, in most cases, the level of interest is very low. The low level of interest can be attributed in part to the absence of technical expertise within most all government offices and/or the failure of such expertise to inform government policies and priorities. Such technical expertise is needed to understand Y2K-related complex integrated systems problems involving IT systems and embedded systems.

There is a commonly held perception among Members of Congress, the Administration, the media, and the public that the Administration was correct in declaring victory in early January. Efforts to track and assess Y2K problems, such as they were, ceased early in the year. As one contractor to government put it at a public meeting in March, "we (the public) are on our own."

I am aware of only a very individuals who have continued to express continuing concern about Y2K-related matters. Aside from GICC, I know of very few other efforts that continue to include a focus on such concerns and none of these has the visibility that GICC has. It is curious that public institutions have abrograted their responsibilities to continue event to track and assess, let alone address, this stage of the first greatest global challenge in the information age. It makes me wonder if this is an indication that at least for the time being, as a society, we have collectively allowed technology to "snooker" us: Technology may have gotten the upperhand. Very few of those with the technical training that enables them to understand Y2K-related complex integrated systems problems are openly acknowledging their concerns. In recent months, far too few seem to be helping shed light on and address current and continuing Y2K-related challenges. It also seems that when the insights of those with such training and expertise is brought to the attention of those in roles of public responsibility, it can fall on deaf ears. Such individuals too often lack a basic grasp of the complexities of technical subjects and cannot see the relevance of such concerns to policy and action. In our overly specialized society, we have failed to create a sufficient role for generalists and cross-disciplinary experts. We have failed to create roles for persons who understand enough about the complexities of technology and policy to act as catalysts and interpreters between the experts and those in policy roles. This could well prove to be one of the gravest failings of schools that train and prepare professionals in scientific and technical fields as well as the fields of public administration and business administration.

I plan to continue to do what I can on a pro bono basis. Many thanks to so many of those involved with GICC for all that you are doing.

I am interested in communicating directly with those who have technical expertise bearing on Y2K-related complex integrated systems problems who might be willing to share their insights into what is going on behind the scenes, on the record or off the record. Paula Gordon July 31, 2000

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), July 31, 2000

Answers

Word Products Inc, charges $500. for the first 500 words, $.25/word for the next 5000 words and $.15/word for any number of words above 5000. Words will be formatted as a White Paper, for an additional charge of $500.

Paula Gordon, CEO

Word Products, Inc

-- (pgordon@polysyllabic.crap), July 31, 2000.

(laughter)

If Gordon wants to maximize her profits, she should include a caveat with her email.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), July 31, 2000.

In our overly specialized society, we have failed to create a sufficient role for generalists and cross-disciplinary experts. We have failed to create roles for persons who understand enough about the complexities of technology and policy to act as catalysts and interpreters between the experts and those in policy roles.

No Paula,

Tose people exist, it is the companies who got rid of them to save money by bringing in consultants to do the work when a problem becomes big enough to cause a financial problem.

I agree that it is not taught in schools of higher learning, and the methods of teaching are extremely wrong for the field.

Maybe the companies need to have their recruters look for these multi-talanted people and stop demanding IT's do the jobs of experts. Most of the peole who are expert in multi fields were taught in the military efore it was downsized, or self taught ~ where they learned one field and taught themselves the fields that are perifial to them. If you (Paula) really want to know what needs to be done to correct this situation, try understanding that a degree in civil engineering does not give anyone the knowledge to know how a computer works at machine leval. Stop getting impressed by someone having engineer after their name and face reality, degree''s are nothing compaired to actual knowledge and experience.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 31, 2000.

You go Paula baby, don't let these guys OR reality slow ya down, I love ya like you are, lol.

I must say however, that I do feel a bit the dejected suiter, for never once in our several emails prior to y2k did you even want to hear THIS experts findings concerning my work with y2k in nuclear power....but then, I didn't have the scenario you wanted, did I....;)

Load the tin foil cannons, the doomsday machine is BAAAAAAACKKKK baby...lol

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), July 31, 2000.

"Maybe...maybe...maybe..."

Maybe Cherri should learn how to spell-check, so she will appear less like an idiot...

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), August 01, 2000.

"No Paula,

Tose people exist, it is the companies who got rid of them to save money by bringing in consultants to do the work when a problem becomes big enough to cause a financial problem.

I agree that it is not taught in schools of higher learning, and the methods of teaching are extremely wrong for the field.

Maybe the companies need to have their recruters look for these multi-talanted people and stop demanding IT's do the jobs of experts. Most of the peole who are expert in multi fields were taught in the military efore it was downsized, or self taught ~ where they learned one field and taught themselves the fields that are perifial to them. If you (Paula) really want to know what needs to be done to correct this situation, try understanding that a degree in civil engineering does not give anyone the knowledge to know how a computer works at machine leval. Stop getting impressed by someone having engineer after their name and face reality, degree''s are nothing compaired to actual knowledge and experience.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 31, 2000."

lol! the last time i heard someone talk like this he was stinking drunk and falling on his face!

been hitting the moonshine there cherri?

-- (bad@grammar.crackers), August 01, 2000.

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 01, 2000.

Oh, I see what you mean. It's just like the way creeper feels the need to come back 6 months after Y2K to correct everyone who he thinks was wrong, even though it is ancient history and they could care less. He is just using it to feel fulfilled and make himself feel superior because in reality he is very inferior and has nothing to be proud of. Hmmm, interesting, I see your point.

-- (takes one @ to know. one), August 01, 2000.

Gee, I'm glad I did have a job that required time wasted in spelling correctly, it seems the same "logic" that it takes to understand the technical jobs I have done, causes the the spelling mistakes I and others who are good techncally, to mispell this american language which is not based on logic.

I'm not concerned with spelling as much as others are, considering most of it is done by memorization. I would rather be able to use my brain to figure out things logically.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 01, 2000.

lol! good one cherri!

do you think they'll buy it?

-- you're dumb (quit pretending @ you're. smart), August 01, 2000.

Paula is still looking for explanations, long after the "Experts" testified they did not know "What the Hell would happen, with the Roll Over". Bunch of Buffons, and Paula is calling them to task, even now. You Go!, Paula, haul their ass in, make them show their expertise, kick out, those, who have none. I stick with Paula!, who always had not the knowledge, but she had guts. Bravo!

-- I For One (don'tgive@ratsass.com), August 02, 2000.