What Does 'Compliant' Mean?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Someone define this term for me. What does "Y2K Compliant" mean, and what does a system have to do to earn this label?

-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 16, 1999

Answers

To me the definition of a company being Y2k compliant is a company that won't go bankrupt in 2000.

-- Solvent (R@L.O), April 17, 1999.

I can't define the term "Y2K compliant" in terms of the technical requirements, however, as a term, it has come to mean that the system it is identifying is CLOSER to being able to function post-Y2K.

It is also slightly oxymoronic in that, unless all of the systems with which it interfaces are likewise "compliant" and the concern's operators/labor force are able to get to work and DO what is needed to operate, then "Y2K compliant" is only a potential, a state of readiness, not a reality in the practical sense.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), April 17, 1999.


I have always hated the term y2k "compliant." To me, compliant means meeting the dictates of regulatory requirements so a government agency won't pounce on you with citations and fines.

-- balking (balking@offmyback.com), April 17, 1999.

I found this thread at the EUY2K forum. It was posted in January this year under the title, "What Does It Mean To Be Y2K Compliant? (Industry Standard)."

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000P9h

As to your second question, I would think that specific compliance standards would depend on the business or industry in which the company competes. There are probably some generic standards common to all, but where you would look for them, I don't know.

I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if fed.gov had one of their very own, that they made up themselves, and it's different than this one.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), April 17, 1999.


A search at DeJaeger's site produced quite a list:

http://www.year2000.com/cgi-bin/aglimpse/40/home/www/Docs/year2000.com ?query=compliance+definition&errors=0&maxfiles=50&maxlines=10

In case this doesn't work, go to the year2000 site, and use the keywords "compliance definition" with the search engine.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), April 17, 1999.



Stephen,

I'm not sure of the standard for "compliant" as it pertains to every industry, but in the software development industry, there's a difference between "compliant" and "compatible".

"Compliant" is the stricter standard that requires that all systems functions and calculations perform correctly and that ALL dates used, stored and displayed by the system (input --> process --> output) include century. It therefore requires an expansion of every date stored in a database and everywhere it is used and displayed. Unfortunately, this is all too often an unnecessarily strict and time-consuming standard that is being held up as the only one that matters. I believe it does not allow for use of such "shortcuts" as windowing which is very practical and reliable for many systems.

"Compatible" is a more practical standard. To be compatible, a system must function correctly in year 2000 and display and use century for only those dates that require the distinction. For instance, many systems use birthdates for displays and calculations. To see 03/15/00 in a birthdate field on a report or inquiry, century is required in order to know whether you're dealing with a newborn or a centurian.

Hope this helps.

-- David (David@BankPacman.com), April 17, 1999.


Stephen,

At this point in the game and with your own extensive knowledge of what is going on, why do you even ask this question? Are you playing a setup here, so that you can come back with an extensive rebuttal of whatever is said? I know that you have a definite understanding of these terms and your own opinion of what they mean, so what gives?

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.



whetherman,

At this point in the game and with your own extensive knowledge of what is going on, why do you even ask this question?

Because -- as witness the replies above -- I can't seem to find one standardized definition. And yet, you'll see stats such as, "banks are 80% compliant."

Wouldn't it be useful to understand what "80% compliant" really means, and what bearing it has on that bank's ability to conduct business?

Shoot, I had one guy take me to task for confusing "Y2K Ready" and "compliant." [g]

-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 17, 1999.


Stephen,

OK, it looks like I had you wrong. I had assumed from all your previous posts that you had a real good grasp on what was going on in this field of compliance or non-compliance. I see now that you are one of the great mass of CLUELESS. You have a lot of catching up to do, but if you are willing to spend some real quality hours doing the research, you will be rewarded. I suggest you start with the Gary North site, which addresses the true meaning of compliance very well.

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.


I think this is a valid question. I expect few if any organizations of any size from smallest to largest to experience absolutely no date bug issues, no matter how much testing they do.

The preparations we're all doing (I hope!) aren't concerned with noncompliant as much as with nonfunctional. There's a huge difference between the two. If you still get power but your bills are late or wrong, this is quite different from having no power. If your bank continues to honor your checks but won't give you cash for a few weeks, this is very different from losing all your money. If you can buy plenty of food to eat, but you can't find your favorite brands or you must mix milk from dry mile for a while, you can get by. If there are long lines at the few gas stations who get intermittent gas, this is inconvenient but you're not immobilized.

A substantial macroeconomic impact requires a *whole lot* of *very serious* noncompliance, enough to render many major players nonfunctional. We're talking here about no substitutes, no alternatives, no workarounds, no quick fixes. Very unlikely. Gary North's noncompliant=dead orientation doesn't hold water.

From what I've read, North argues that compliant=perfect, and many organizations interpret compliant=functional (with issues). Compliance is like horseshoes -- close counts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 1999.




whetherman,

GREAT response. About what I expected.

In other words, YOU can't provide a meaningful definition, either, so you have to resort to namecalling. :)

For the record, I've seen a dozen different definitions on a dozen different Web sites (North's included).

YOU tell me: what does "compliant" mean. In your own words.

-- Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 17, 1999.



Flint,

Good answer. Be careful, though, or you're going to get thumped. I had one guy flame me horribly just for confusing "Y2K Ready" and "Y2k Compliant."

(And yet, he couldn't give me a standardized definition for "compliant," either. [g])

--Stephen
http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 17, 1999.


Stephen,

What does that little [g] stand for? Does that mean cha-grin? I think you are a groper here, so I will say to you, lower, lower. Start here:

www.garynorth.com/y2k/search_.cfm

Near the bottom of the page is your menu of choices. May I suggest:

Banking, Compliance, Noncompliant Chips (all good starting points)

There is also No Big Problem, and Too Late. But I would caution you not to go directly to the No Big Problem items right off, although you may well decide to end your search in that area.

Take thee there now my son, and sin no more!

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.


Whetherman:

I've been reading North's site for over two years now. At first, he made good points -- remediation was just starting, assessments hadn't been performed, and nobody had any hard evidence that even the hairiest scare stores might not be true. North was quite right, and it really did make sense to assume the worst until we knew otherwise.

I think if you read North today, you'll find the thrust of his arguments have become rather feeble and desperate. He's no longer talking about no hope, since there's overwhelming evidence of hope. Instead, he's talking about "no verification" of what's been accomplished. Never mind that this verification was never required before (to get us into this mess). Never mind that many levels of verification are in fact being done, but none to North's satisfaction (as you'd expect). Never mind that what works works, even if North isn't satisfied with the level of verification. Never mind that North's definition of compliance must now be supernaturally strict.

North doesn't even try to pretend that he's not a spin doctor. Spinning is his career! Now, if you like spin, North is a great place to do your 'research'. So is Koskinen. But if you don't want the spin, you're going to actually have to think for yourself. Yes, I know this is very hard, and it's much easier to attack people. But give it a try someday -- you might enjoy it!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 1999.


Nero, Nero, I mean Stephen and Flint, put down your fiddles and look outside. We aren't talking science here guys, we're talking art form. You just can't pin that down. Stephen desperately wants someone to define what compliant means, but you can't. Might as well ask for feedback on the question "What does a steak taste like?"

The final answers to all these questions will unfold in their own time, but for now we can only try to make some gut level sense out of it on our individual own. This is more like a spiritual puzzle than a scientific one. There are many rooms in God's mansion, choose one.

I endorse a statement made in a current Roleigh Martin email, "Preparations should be made based on *stakes*...not the odds." Perhaps that just brings us back to the beginning, what does a stake taste like?

Stephen, I don't think you ready for any intense debate on this issue yet, you still have a lot of research to do. Just get clicking and then return for more instructions. Have faith. When the student is ready, the Master will come. I am offering these suggestions in the same spirit that you asked the original question, What does Y2K compliant mean?

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.



Whetherman:

That statement in the Martin email is quoting *me*. I'm glad you endorse it, I do too.

Let's all agree that the stakes are large. Nobody disputes this. As to what is most likely to happen, you won't find that at Gary North.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 17, 1999.


Flint,

Terrific, a fine statement on stakes. Wish I had said it myself. And the fact that Roleigh found it worth passing on is an honor to you.

Regarding the exchange with Stephen, let me clear this up, if I can. He posted a basic question that either (1) was an attempt to suck some people into a useless area of debate, or (2) he genuinely doesn't know how to deal with that puzzle after years of pondering it. So I am giving him another path to follow.

Perhaps you will agree that as we try to get answers to our most serious questions about Y2k, scientific method just doesn't get us there. So the answer is probably not in the scientific arena, but in the spiritual one. This is a very hard transition to make for anyone that has bet their life on science for answers. Now when I say spiritual, I am not talking about simple "church" doctrine, no, no, no. I am talking about a whole different way to look at life and its challenges. Poets practice this approach intuitively. However, I think you might also agree that a local church will offer more help in a chaotic situation than the government, or the *people* of the church, I should say, which is what any church really is after all.

We are about to go off on a Quest, whether you call that recession, depression or changed social order. That's the premise. If science could tell you what to expect it would, but it can't. A renowned speaker, professor, of spiritual history made an observation. He noted that while science can tell you HOW we live our lives, it can't begin to tell you how we SHOULD live our lives. That's the job of religion to do, anywhere, anytime, in any form. Stephen seems intent on making his points based on scientifically exact facts, and so he now struggles with pettyfogging the matter with ancient questions like he introduced here and for which there is no answer. I am suggesting to him that it is time to move on to other issues. Such as how will we structure our lives within a different social system? Of course, he may actually believe that there is not going to be any meaningful change in our present system, but that isn't scientifically provable and it wastes time to debate it. It is of no help to anyone to start down a trail of "What does Y2K Compliant mean?" It means whatever we want it to mean, as was said in Alice In Wonderland. Maybe Stephen was just bored today and looking for some action. Kids, big and little, do that to each other all the time.

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.


This is for the 'whetherboy':

YOU want to talk about clueless? YOU need remedial reading. Mr. Poole asked for your own words Not Gary "duct tape will be money" freakin' North.... or anybody else!

YOUR'S.... what part of that do you not understand?

I will go out on a limb here and figure you are part of the flip-top head crowd. You know, don't understand Y2K so get your daily 'fix' from North, this forum, sissy2k, where ever. Another good example of your 'kind' can be found at this thread. 'Somebody' who is a self-appointed "expert" wants to know what NERC stands for! WhOOOOoooo aaaaha hah HAH HAH!!!

Have you even been to Stephen's site? (He cold links it, which would require you to 'cut and paste'...perhaps that is beyond your expertize? LOL!) here it is for the 'point and click' "research" crowd... www.wwjd.net/smpoole

ta-ta!

-- Mutha Nachu (---@garynorthsucks.conjob), April 17, 1999.


Mutha Nachu,

Relax G.I., this is only a drill. Or in your case is it DGI?

Hey, does anyone here know who this kid belongs to? I know it's Sat and people are out doing their thing, but who left this one without any adult supervision?

-- Wetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.


Stephen,

I have noticed in the past that when you are being pressured about some postion you have posted, Mutha Nachu comes in at your defense. This has made we wonder:

(1) Is Mutha actually you, in a different persona? Like that movie, The Three Faces Of Eve? Because if that's the case, we are dealing with a multiple personality here, and from what I read, that is a *very* difficult disorder to cure.

(2) Is Mutha your own child? If that's the case, you would be advised to get a leash back on her as soon as possible. That ranting and raving will only draw the attention of Child Welfare who will scoop her up and put her in a foster home real quick, and you'll never see her again. Well maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing either.

(3) Is Mutha one of your disciples, in training? If that's the case, you need to put her computer *off limits* until she acquires a deeper education. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, as Mutha so flagrantly displays.

(4) I have another possibility, but I need to get a reply from Mutha once again to be certain. MUTHA, MUTHA, ARE YOU THERE? Peak-a-boo.

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 17, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ