I've been grumpily checking out some of the comments about Ed. There is a lot of "ESP" activity here, based on little to no foundation. On reflection, though, I suppose it is very understandable. No one EVER has the last word on this forum, which is a good thing. But, for those that might be interested, since I have a relatively similar professional background to Ed and am also a GI, I thought I might parse his "Sayonara" statement. Hopefully, this will add light, not smoke.

[My comments below. Ellipses ..... as necessary to save some space at least]

-------------

Sayonara, Y2K

The time has come for me to say goodbye to Y2K ......

.... Why? Why Now?

No, I haven't been abducted by aliens. I haven't been kidnapped by the CIA or the mysterious people in black helicopters. I haven't been threatened by the FBI. I haven't been bribed by banks or the government (or anyone else). There is nothing deep, dark, or mysterious about my decision.

I simply feel that I've done everything I can do to raise the alarm about Y2K .....

[Take this at face value. What you see is what you get with this one.] .... More important, I would be preaching to the choir; those whose opinion and outlook on Y2K are compatible with mine would nod their head in agreement, and those whose opinion and outlook are incompatible with mine would shake their head in disbelief, just as they have for the past four years.

Yes, there are still some people who are undecided, and who continue to listen to both the optimists and the pessimists before making up their own mind. But I think that a more accurate term for "undecided" is "indifferent" -- i.e., there are many people who still don't care, who don't think the topic is worthy of serious attention, and who may not focus on Y2K until this fall -- and quite possibly not even until midnight on New Year's Eve.

[At the micro level, families and even portions of some communities, this may not be so. At the societal, media-managed level, it is exactly so.] Meanwhile, I sense a hardening of positions: those who are pessmistic about the outcome are even more convinced than they were a year ago, and those who are optimistic are even more convinced, especially because they see a steady stream of upbeat press releases and government status reports.

More than just hardening of positions, though, I sense an increasing degree of confrontation and hostility between the two camps. It's reflected in flame wars on the Internet discussion groups; emotional rhetoric in the statements of government officials and media articles (e.g., warnings against "frivolous stockpiling"); McCarthy-esque threats by both sides that "we're taking names" in preparation for some kind of undescribed post-Y2K retribution against those who express an opposing point of view; and, overall, a sharp decline in civility. I expect this to continue for the remainder of the year, and I don't think it's a productive use of my time (or anyone else's) to continue attempting to respond to messages and commentary whose purpose often seems to be "ignore the message, shoot the messenger." Why isn't it productive? Because it doesn't change anyone's mind about the topic.

[No surprise to anyone on the forum. It could be read as a veiled recommendation that the forum itself stop but is most likely just what it sounds like: keeping in mind that Ed is a GI and believes that minds are made up, why argue with DGIs?]

Does This Imply A Change of Opinion About Y2K?

No doubt there will be some who gleefully proclaim, "This just proves that Ed was wrong about Y2K all along! He has given up on his 'doomer' position, but he's too much of a coward to say so!" Well, time will tell whether any of us were right or wrong about Y2K -- but for now, my perspective on Y2K remains essentially unchanged.

[We could try to apply "ESP" to the word "essentially" but the key word is "unchanged" and that he addresses this obvious question with an entire section of his article.] I stand by the comments I've made in all of the articles and essays that I've written; at a "macro" level, I still have a pessimistic outlook about the outcome of Y2K.

["Stand by" means just that. No retractions of any kind.]

.... Ultimately, there is only a limited amount of control that corporations and government agencies have over the technological outcome of Y2K; yet the prevailing attitude seems to be that government and industry are in control, as long as they can "manage" the perceptions of the public. I have believed, all along, that Y2K is too big, too complex, and too systemic in nature to be "controlled" from a technological perspective;

[This is the classic GI position, once which I and many others on this forum agree with completely. I think Ed means "political" where he says "technological" but I could be wrong. The point is: it has to get fixed; fixing it is not something that can be perceptually spun or controlled by organizational entities.]

and I believe that the public's perception of Y2K will ultimately be shaped by tangible events that impact their lives, much more than it's shaped by the "spin control" efforts of government and industry. For the past few months, the PR spin control has been quite effective, and I fully expect that it will continue throughout the summer as government and industry seek to "reassure" the public.

[Scarcely the words of someone backing off from his view of Y2K or of someone who has been "threatened" by the government.]

... Those who want me to continue participating in the public debate sometimes ask me, "But isn't it possible that things will change in the final months of Y2K?" And the optimists ask a roughly similar question: "Yes, I agree that things look bad in small companies, small towns, and small countries -- and maybe even in some of the big companies and big agencies. But don't you agree that with a lot of hard work, we can redouble our efforts, achieve a quantum leap in productivity, and make enough progress in these last few months to avert disaster?"

[This is a variation on the famous question, "won't fixing Y2K be different because the deadline is immovable the motivation is extreme"?]

To which my answer is, quite simply, "No." If you believe in the Tooth Fairy, or in the kind of implausible miracles favored by Hollywood script-writers, then perhaps you can sustain your belief that everything will somehow work out in the end.

[It is hard to imagine how anyone on this forum could be more definite than Ed is here. It ISN'T going to get fixed in 1999.] If you're looking at an individual company, or an individual government agency, perhaps you can make a plausible case -- yes, sometimes we get lucky, sometimes the combination of inspiration and perspiration are sufficient to overcome enormous odds. But at the macro level, I don't think it makes sense. We have 30 years of data in the software field that tells what to expect in the "average" case -- i.e., 25% of all projects are cancelled, 15% are delivered behind schedule, and the resulting systems have an average of one defect for every thousand lines of code.

[Of course, this is his "deja vu" argument. It is important here only as evidence that he meant what he said at the top: he stands by what he has written and his views on Y2K are essentiall unchanged.]

If a miracle were to occur, it would have occurred two, or three, or four years ago. If President Clinton had addressed a joint session of Congress in 1996 and declared a state of emergency until Y2K had been completely conquered, perhaps we could look forward to a successful outcome at the end of this year.

[Translation: to have successfully conquered this TECHNICAL problem meant starting at least one and perhaps two or three years before most enterprises actually began.]

I'm not talking about the martial-law, conspiracy-theory form of "state of emergency," but rather a "fireside chat," followed by a series of actions that would make Y2K the highest-priority activity in the land. It didn't happen then, and it isn't happening now. I'm fairly convinced that it won't happen during the remaining seven months of 1999 -- and even if it did, it's now too late.

[While I doubt Ed has access to government inner circles, Y2K is, at least up to now, leadership by omission, not by conspiratorial commission.]

If a high-level executive issues a thundering edict to the Y2K programming staff, "Redouble your efforts! Work harder!", the response from the programmers is likely to be, "Boss, we're thinking as hard as we can!" Software is an intellectual activity, rather than something requiring brawn and muscle-power; you simply can't order people to think harder.

I believe that we are entering the "end game" of Y2K, and that the outcome isn't likely to be changed significantly because of last-minute strategies, edicts, proclamations, or demands for deathmarch-style overtime on the part of programmers. About the only thing that's still an option, both for organizations and for individuals, is contingency planning and preparations for some degree of disruptions. But again, this involves preaching to the choir: those who believe it makes sense to develop and implement contingency plans, are already doing so -- indeed, some 90% of private-sector organizations are planning "war rooms" or "control centers" to cope with whatever problems arise. Meanwhile, those who think it's unnecessary will continue to do nothing. Yes, it's possible that there will be a last-minute surge in preparedness activities, especially at the personal level; but it probably won't happen until this fall, at which point it will lead to the very phenomenon of shortages and panics that government spokesmen have been warning about. Meanwhile, it's going to be a long, hot, quiet summer of Y2K-denial, unless some significant, undeniable, tangible event occurs.

[Ed, like many of us, can't help preaching to the choir because it is SO frustrating to watch the train approach the cliff where the tracks end. Consequently, he "thinks it through" yet again. To those expecting July 1 to be some sort of "cliff date", Ed suggests here that this may not necessarily be so.]

What About All The People Who Don't Know About Y2K?

.... There is no shortage of information about Y2K. If the 8 million New Yorkers, or the 250 million Americans, or the 5 billion citizens of the world, want to know all about Y2K, there are dozens of books, thousands of articles, and tens of thousands of references on the Internet. Ignorance was a plausible excuse in 1995 and 1996, perhaps even in 1997 -- but not now. If someone doesn't know about Y2K, it's because they've chosen to ignore it, and/or because they believe the assurances of government and industry spokesmen who tell them there is nothing to worry about.

["Ignorance" is not a plausible excuse in 1999. "Indifference" is Ed's analysis of the cultural response (as above in the article). Remember, we are talking societally. Individuals will still become GIs throughout 1999 for all the usual reasons it has been happening over the past couple of years.]

... there comes a time when it seems appropriate to say, "Okay, I've done my best to tell you what's going on. Now it's up to you to decide what (if anything) you're going to do about it." For me, that time has come.

[Take this at face value.]

Conclusion

I suspect that there are also a number of Y2K activists who will be frustrated that they can no longer send me email messages, asking meto provide an interpretation or analysis of the day-to-day Y2K announcements from the media and the corporate PR departments. To which I offer two responses: (1) you're intelligent adults, and you can use your own common sense to decide how to interpret the news; and (2) the debate between the optimists and pessimists will continue, with ever more emotion and rhetoric, right up to Jan 1, 2000 and beyond.

[Having mentioned this more than once in his article, I see it as a key to his current position, but it would be very foolish to believe that it is the tone of the debate that bothers him. It is the widespread indifference to the problem that makes further public effort non-productive.]

If you're waiting for someone to produce an absolute, guaranteed, indisputable "answer" to the Y2K debate, you've already waited too long. It's not going to happen. As I suggested in one of my earlier essays, everyone will have to decide for themselves when the "moment of truth" has arrived, when they will make a decision about their own personal Y2K plans, in the presence of incomplete, fuzzy information.

I also suspect that there are a number of Y2K activists who will continue doing everything in their power to raise the alarm, alert the government, and encourage their neighbors and fellow citizens to stockpile and prepare -- right up to the last moment. They have my respect, my admiration, and my best wishes. As for me, it's time to get back to providing for my family.

If there are any major developments this summer or fall, where I think my background and experience in software engineering might provide a useful perspective, I'll dust off my soap-box and offer an appropriate commentary. And when the dust settles, in the days and weeks after Jan 1, 2000, I'll reappear to offer an appropriate mea culpa if my Y2K outlook proved wrong.

[One final time: his outlook has not changed as of this date.]

Meanwhile, my best wishes for everyone as we move into the Y2K end game.

[From other things he has written, I believe the best way to interpret Ed's position is as a combination of two factors:

1. It is unproductive to expend effort when all the useful information is out there and positions have hardened.

2. Ed's judgment of the end game all along has been that, unless intense changes were made in the scope of the effort, with appropriate national leadership, it would be too late for the problem to be solved. We have now reached that point. Consequently, "contingency planning" is the order of the day and Ed has chosen, as is his right AND responsibility, to focus on that dimension for his own family and local community.

It's time for me to say, "Sayonara, Y2K." I'll see you on the other side.

[See you, Ed, and thanks!]

[I hope this has been helpful for those few who might believe that there is some ulterior reason behind this, either conspiratorial or a conversion to polly-dom. Or, for that matter, that it represents a conviction that some catastrophic Y2K event is about to happen: you'll note he expressed doubt about any change in Y2K awareness unless such an event happens, but his words don't seem to indicate any knowledge that something is "in the works" necessarily.

Now, let's stop eulogizing Ed as though he were dead and get on with our own lives.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 30, 1999

Answers

Big Dog, although you and I haven't always agreed on "some things," I certainly agree with you on this and especially the last two paragraphs. Sometimes people just make changes, because that's the direction their lives or work are taking them. Not everything in this world is bound up in some big cloak and dagger conspiracy.

While I think Mr. Yourdon is a fine guy, all the eulogizing and tribrutes have been similiar to a wake where people just can't say enough good things about the departed. As you said, we need to "get on with our own lives." It's kind of silly to live in the reflected glory of a famous person. But then Americans are always looking for a hero. This does not in any way imply any lack of respect for him, but after all he's still here on the planet. And we are adults that shouldn't need a daddy, or a forum to get through a bad patch.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 30, 1999.

AMEN to BOTH of you. I know I spilled the requisite amount of Guiness on MY keyboard last night. NOW - On with the SHOW!!

Chuck

y'all have no clue how sticky that stuff is if you don't clean it up in time.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 30, 1999.

I agree with you all the way BD.

In reaction to gilda's statement:

Compassion & gratitude are two states of being that no one should be embarrassed to experience, nor express. For me, life is best lived spreading love, of which compassion & gratitude are a subset.

I paid tribute to EY. I wrote from my heart. He is a hero to me in that his work as a Y2K activist was distinguished by repeated acts of courage. It is IMHO, very appropriate that those who feel it, communicate it.

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 30, 1999.

This is why I come here. Honesty. Compassion. Reality......"and the greatest of these is Love"

If you believe that just *one* more life may be saved through your/our efforts, then I cannot see giving in to the overall failures.

Similar to the quote reiterated in "Field of Dreams" "If you build it, they will come"

I did!

Thank you EY!! Hope to see you at Rendezvous

-- unspun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 30, 1999.

"...ignore the message, and shoot the messenger...." "...they can no longer send me email messages...."

Any possibility he was receiving death threats?

-- not (grabbing@straws.here), May 30, 1999.

The Greatest Wealth Transfer Event of the Twentieth Century Begins

http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/y2kconf/papers/paper85fp.htm

-- (mjy@nht.bgr), May 30, 1999.

Big Dog,

If anything this signals what should be a redoubling of efforts to prepare. Especially for blokes like myself. More water, food, blankets, batteries, gas, more food, wood, tools, etc.

If this is the END GAME then CHECKMATE is not far behind.

Ignore it at your own peril. Y2K is unlike anything the world has seen.

It just realy sucks.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), May 31, 1999.