A good article about why companies are (or aren't) saying what they are is at

http://www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=47286

-- Online2Much (a rose@anyothername.com), February 10, 1999

Answers

Good site, thanks Online. The information given confirms some of what we know or surmise and adds some new details. The summary at the end is as follows: The Y2K Talk: Do's and Don'ts Sam Byassee, a partner at the law firm of Smith Helms Mullis & Moore LLP, in Raleigh, N.C., offers some pointers for year 2000 communications:

 DO be responsive. Trying to stonewall or evade inquiries will raise a red flag and focus more attention on your company.

 DO explain that the information being provided may change based on changes in future circumstances.

 DO include a notice on written material that it's a "year 2000 readiness disclosure" pursuant to the federal Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act of 1998. Statements with that label can't be used as evidence in any lawsuit.

 DO be truthful and as accurate as possible.

 DO brief people who may be asked year 2000 questions on what the company is doing and what the appropriate type of response is.

 DO have those people add that they aren't directly involved in the project and that for more detailed information, the questioner should contact the project office.

 DON'T assume that you must use the questionnaire form that an organization asks you to answer. DO provide information that you think will be useful and DO offer to work with the other party to address any concerns specific to your company. That is to show due diligence without wasting your time on minutiae that doesn't apply.

 DON'T sign a questionnaire that says you're certifying anything, indemnifying the other company or providing a warranty. DO provide the appropriate information and send it back with a letter declining to accept the additional risk requested in the certification or warranty.

 DON'T assume that if you're ready internally for year 2000, you won't have any problems.

 DON'T allow any overoptimism or overconfidence to creep into your response.

 DON'T give firm projections even if your project is on schedule.

 DON'T give an absolute deadline for when you'll be ready. "It's the difference between 'We will be ready' and 'We now expect to be ready,'" Byassee notes.

 DON'T provide more information than requested, even if you're proud of the work you've accomplished. "If you say 10 things, you have 10 chances of something going wrong," Byassee says. "If you say 20 things, you have 20 chances."

Cut and pasted by

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 10, 1999.

Old Git, Very good pull on the legal cite. Byasees words point up the main interpretation prblem we face as GI's, that is, the legal landscape has made it difficult to dessiminate good news. At least in the US, things could really be much better than we have been told. I will allow de Jager that much; however, no one will ever persuade me that things are better without hard evidence. There is too much at stake. Therefore, I have spent several hundred dollars buying canned food and water and fuel containers and I'll put some cash in my safe deposit box at the bank. (I don't mind losing the interest, but I don't want to be subject to fire or thieves.) So as a y2k consumer, I'm in something of a permanent information vacuum.

So that's the bad thing about the legal landscape. The good thing, is that I firmly believe that our litigious society and the threat of lawsuits is one of the main reasons that the US is far ahead of other industrialized countries. That's how I first saw y2k advertised years ago; as a potential source for lawsuits which must be planned for. Now, of course, the lawsuit potential is secondary to the operational concerns, as well it should be. But the legal system serves an important larger societal function of redirecting behavior, and the US is going to reap (at least relatively) some significant benefit in corporate preparedness (which is not to say that y2k will be just a bump in the road)

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 10, 1999.

Hi, PT. Couldn't have said it better myself. (And didn't, dammit.) The other side of the coin is that lawyers make such big money because they're trained to look for every possible eventuality. Clients want to cover every possible eventuality because, for one thing, they know Murphy operates with such impunity. Besides Murphy there's the "Disgruntled Employee" factor--how many computer pros have gone postal by setting their own little timebombs in supposedly remediated systems? How many, through sheer fatigue or carelessness have missed something crucial? Sure, these things happen in normal times--but the point is Y2K-remediation retaliations and errors will hit when all systems are at their most vulnerable. Here we are again, though, trying to second-guess Y2K and it just can't be done, drives you mad. Like you, and many more of us, I'll just keep adding to the stash until I can't add any more, for whatever reason. The worst that can happen is that we'll save a ton of money on 2000 food prices and sail through any natural disaster with much aplomb.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 10, 1999.