ATTN: GICC POSTERS & READERS - Your Opinions Needed for Direction of GICC : LUSENET : Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) : One Thread

GICC Patrons -

The GICC analysts met last Friday to discuss the future of the GICC. We are interested in what direction that you, as posters and readers of the GICC, would like to see the GICC go in.

The analysts desire to sustain the current level of Y2K coverage, however, many good infrastructure issues are arising that may or may not be Y2K related that many of us would like to continue to track and discuss.

Please let us know: How are you utilizing the GICC now? Is the forum a natural catalyst for a move into another area, in your opinion? What direction(s) make sense to you? Would you be willing to serve as a GICC manager if needed? Add any other feedback you have as well.

Please respond either directly to this thread, or privately to my email address. Your response will be kept in confidence at your request.

Thanks for your response!

The GICC Analysts

-- Jen Bunker (, February 07, 2000


I'm of the opinion that "something wonderful is happening" of whose exact nature I'm not quite sure. But I can feel it in my bones, and I'd be willing to bet that a great lot of others do, too.

Many of us came together for the Year 2000 problem, perhaps because this was the most realistic agent of change that we could imagine. Now that the date has passed some of us may wonder if the need to organise and alter our thought patterns is still there.

Do we not see the forest for a few dying trees? Do we even know the quality and quality of the change that is occuring?

We may have all gathered on the pier and waited for the comet, to no avail. But look! We have surely made contact with others who think along the same lines as us. *Believers* in change. Is the medium the message? Do we ignore the message because it comes to us on a different channel than that to which we are used?

I, for one, motion to continue to observe the change that uniquely illustrates itself about us, and for continued exposure to such events (however small or seemingly insignificant) that help to fashion an understanding of the nature of change.

-For our thoughts of "Y2K" awakened something within us that many of us cannot ignore. Let us not let our dreams of the kind of living that we know is possible cease because we fail to understanding that the "show is still going on", just on a different channel.

-- Antoine Neron (, February 07, 2000.

As many of you know, Dale Way who is the y2k honcho for IEEE said "the fat lady hasn't even gotten on the stage yet." This comment was made after the roll-over.

So, while comments about fat ladies isn't PC, his point is well worth remembering.

The kind of information which has been posted to this forum by the dedicated people (you know who you are) whose names I see daily has been and will be valuable.

It may just be a y2k-hangover, but I, too, feel that something nasty this way comes and the more background data we have, the better.

So, yes, let us continue to include information about planes, trains.....and gas line leaks.

If something seems quirky, let the rest of us know. Better to skim through stuff which may not be germane than to sit around feeling our feelings but not having anything to base them on.


-- alexander (, February 07, 2000.

Those of us who researched Y2K prior to the rollover discovered the interconnectedness of our infrastructure and how dependent our society is on it. Most of our concerns centered on the potential for Y2K induced infrastructure failures. Luckily (thank G-d), Jan. 1 passed without major noticeable infrastructure failures (yes I know there have been many problems, but they didn't cause the lights to go out, loss of safe drinking water, etc.).

However, now that I have become aware of infrastructure issues, I would "vote" for the GICC to continue reporting on infrastructure and energy related news items, whether or not they are due to Y2K, because of the major impact such failures can have on our lives.

Basically, keep on doing what you've been doing. Thanks. slza

-- slza (, February 07, 2000.

If nothing else came out loud and clear, from what we've gone through, re Y2K, it has demonstrated beyond the shadow of an argument that: were it not for independent media resources (such as GICC), we might as well be living in a totalitarian blackout zone, as far as accurate news is concerned.

Right now, there are few Y2K resource groups still functioning. I stay in touch with three or four, and I find that GICC continues to be the best source of breaking news available. I'd be pretty much in the dark, if you were not here.

I don't believe this thing is over yet, by a long shot. Please hang in there.

-- Irv Thomas (, February 08, 2000.

Like Irv Thomas, I also have been following the news threads on this site since I found it. The information about the glitches at large businesses is just now coming out. The impact of Y2K is expected to be felt throughout the year and into early next year.

The need for the continued tracking of infrastructure problems, both Y2K related and generally, will not disappear on a magical date. As the infrastructure ages and the controlling agencies are deregulated, the incidents of failure will increase. It would be good to know that there is a site that posts these incidents and ANALYZES them. News without verifiable sources and analysis is merely tabloid reporting...

-- Katie Cleghorn (, February 08, 2000.

I'd rather have too many stories than too few. It's only when we look at the big collection that patterns may appear. There are too many databases that only track problems specific to one industry or specialty. It may be that when we start tracking problems as generalists that we will see that problems plaguing one sector may have been sovled by another. This forum has potential value way beyond Y2K.

I think it is also important to remember that an increase in human error may very well be caused by stress resulting from Y2K related overwork.

There are many, many stories that we are not hearing. We should at least be public with the ones we do hear. I vote to keep them coming.

-- Sally Strackbein (Reston, VA) (, February 09, 2000.

My original view was that there should be a "narrow" definition (very clear y2k relationship). Now, as long as the potential y2k relationship is listed at the top (as it now is most of the time) I am content with more of an infrastructure view. In addition, given the Internet "denial of service" issue: is it hackers? is it routers? is it software that was originally distributed for y2k compliance that had other more dangerous aspects (see post on "y2k daemons")? it is now clear that there will be a blurring between y2k and infrastructure issues for quite a while

-- Bud Hamilton (, February 10, 2000.

This is one of the few spots that those of us Y2K activists who were primarily community oriented can still go for relevant information. I am very, very grateful to those of you putting up the posts and to the GICC for continuing to keep a spot available for such information. There will only be this one chance to gather and monitor this kind of data. I don't know what prices those of you doing this work are paying in time and finances, so I am shy about asking you continue, but I deeply appreciate your services.

-- helen gabel (, February 13, 2000.

Helen - thanks for your nice post.

You have stated the exact reasons why, on about December 20, 1999, it dawned on me that we needed to collect this information at a central collection point. I put out a "HELP!!" request and 30 people stepped up to the plate to become GICC analysts and assistants. We recruited about 1,000 people to post, and the GICC was born. MANY individuals gave MANY hours of their time to make it happen.

For the most part, now the GICC is self-sustaining. We have some very dedicated and professional posters, who we are grateful for. We also have a few very talented and dedicated sysops who help to moderate things, but generally we are allowing the GICC to "morph" as it will naturally.

Thanks for your input. It's always great to hear from the people who use the information. :-)

-- Jen Bunker (, February 13, 2000.

I think our direction is currently okay. If anything, it would be great to find a way to encourage even more postings.

-- Jeanette Thomas (, February 13, 2000.

At first, I suggested that we should stick to the topic of directly Y2k-related incidents. The problem with that thinking is that reports increasingly are showing how Y2k news is being suppressed. Because of that development, I feel we have no choice but to record every potentially Y2k-related incident as we try to analyze them in the months ahead.

I'd like to make one other suggestion - a small but important one. Could you ask folks to *please, please* include a place name in their subject lines?

Before posting an article, I try to check the categories at the bottom of your main page in order that I don't repeat what someone has already posted. A subject line containing a PLACE NAME would make the search so much easier!

Simply copying a media header like: "Glitch causes problems" gives us no indication about "who, what or where."

Thanks. As someone noted earlier, this board is one of the very few credible sites around for Y2k news. -- Lee

-- Lee Maloney (, February 20, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ