GW University Y2K Group Evening Panel Programs, 3/15/2000 and 4/12/2000

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Y2K GROUP PANEL PROGRAM LOOKS AT CURRENT Y2K-RELATED TECHNOLOGY PROBLEMS:
IS Y2K PAST OR IS IT AN ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CONTINUING ATTENTION?
EVENT: There have been numerous post January 1st plane and train crashes, nuclear power plant problems, chemical and manufacturing plant explosions and fires, refinery and pipeline explosions and fires, and fuel shortages. Is the number of these larger than usual? Are any of these Y2K or embedded systems related? If so, why is there not continued public attention to these issues? Are public health and safety being compromised by insufficient public attention? Are public officials aware of the nature of the problems that are occurring? Two Wednesday Evening Panel Programs sponsored by The George Washington University's Y2K Group will discuss these concerns.
WHEN: Wednesday, March 15 and April 12, 2000 7:30 - 9:30 p.m.
WHERE: The George Washington University 103 Funger Hall, 22nd and G Streets NW Washington, D.C.
(Foggy Bottom/GWU Metro, blue and orange lines)
COST: Free and open to the public
Panelists:
Invited panelists include officials from the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board. Also invited are representatives of several trade associations and professionals including oil and gas industry, the insurance industry and the legal profession.
Panelists at the March 15 panel will include:
Michael P. Harden, Ph.D., President and CEO of Century Technology Services, Inc. and embedded systems expert
Gerald Poje, Ph.D., Member, Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board (invited)
Stuart Umpleby, Professor of Management Science and Director, Research Program for Social and Organizational Learning (RPSOL), The George Washington University
Paula Gordon, Director of Special Projects, RPSOL and Visiting Research Professor, GW ( http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon )
Two media questioners have also been invited.
Please watch the announcements page in early April at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon for additional details concerning the April 12 program.
Broadcast media should contact Kim Hughes at 202 994 9023 concerning logistical arrangements.
Please feel free to share this announcement with others who are in the Washington, DC area and might be interested in attending.
Many thanks,

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), March 08, 2000

Answers

Paula,
I've been watching your interest with Y2k issues over the last couple of months, and I've noticed you've posted a few announcements for your group discussions. I suppose you do that because it's still a topic of interest to you, and you want to share your excitement.

However, I don't remember seeing you post the minutes of these meetings, and since I live in another state, I can't possibly drop everything and attend them in person.

Would you be kind enough to post them after each meeting?

Thanks,

L.L. Williams

-- L.L. Williams (Y2kcourse@aol.com), March 08, 2000.

Paula,
Give it up. You've already proven yourself to be the biggest non- expert on Y2k. Why continue to make a fool out of yourself?
Just keeping your name out there I guess. Do you smell $$$$$?

-- cjs (cjs@noemail.com), March 08, 2000.

Paula: The answer to the question of "Are the recent incidents Y2k related?" as it relates to the power industry is a simple NO. Not a single power outage nor a significant event at a nuclear or non- nuclear power plant has been demonstrated to be a date-caused problem. The reports from the oil and airline industries are very similar. All the folks inside the industry are consistently reporting this, so why is there a need to have a conference and discuss it? Do the panelists have actual Y2k testing experience?

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), March 08, 2000.

Will this be televised on CSPAN during sweeps week?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), March 08, 2000.

Ms. Gordon,

I don't know why you e-mailed your response to me instead of posting it, so I'll take the liberty of posting it, if you don't mind.

"Subj: Date: 03/08/2000 5:27:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time From: pgordon@erols.com (P. Gordon) To: Y2kcourse@aol.com

Dear L.L. Williams,

You wrote:

"I am sorry to say that there are no funds to pay someone to write up reports on the programs that have been organized through the GW RPSOL program. The only reports or summaries of presentations that are posted on my website have been written up by presenters or a volunteer. (You will find some reports or copies of presentations on my website. See the meetings section and the conference section.)

Indeed there is no funding for ongoing Y2K programming. There is no funding to pay participants or to reimburse their expenses. So I am sorry, but there is no way that I can guarantee that reports or summaries are posted after programs. My role in these ongoing programs is unpaid.

I do learn alot from the programs and try to reflect what I have learned in the writing that I do. A recent example of writing is my January 17 comments piece. That can be found on my website. Go to the homepage and click on "Comments, Essays, and Op Ed Pieces".

There is always a chance that C-SPAN will broadcast the Y2K programs that GW sponsors. You might want to check the C-SPAN schedule the day before the event to see if they are planning on covering it.

Sincerely,

Paula Gordon

Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D.

Visiting Research Professor and Director of Special Projects, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, George Washington University

For "Comments and Impact Ratings" for January 17, 2000 and the First Quarter of the Year 2000, click on "Comments, Essays, and Op-Ed Pieces" at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon

----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st07.mail.aol.com (rly-st07.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.18]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v69.17) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:27:23 -0500 Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by rly-st07.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id TAA26272 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:17:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (207-172-4-60.in-addr.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v69.17) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:17:33 -0500 Received: from 208-58-214-237.s237.tnt2.lnhdc.md.dialup.rcn.com ([208.58.214.237] helo=pgordon.erols.com) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #3) id 12Sqdc-000615-00 for Y2kcourse@aol.com; Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:17:13 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20000309002215.00c51b70@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: pgordon@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:22:15 -0500 To: From: "P. Gordon" "

I'd like to make a few comments, Ms. Gordon.

It's tragic that our educational system doesn't have the finances to allow all our professors the ability to indulge their every whim. If you can't post the minutes, shouldn't that have been a consideration before you posted your announcement here?

After all, by posting the time, place, and names of people who are attending that meeting, it can be implied that those people believe there are "Y2K or embedded systems related problems" happening with " plane and train crashes, nuclear power plant problems, chemical and manufacturing plant explosions and fires, refinery and pipeline explosions and fires, and fuel shortages."

To be fair, I must ask you, how are the members of this forum going to know if they those participants you listed disagree that there will be problems, if you don't post the minutes?

You are leaving the people here with the assumption that these problems are related, and you don't plan to write it up and let these readers know?

Is that ethical?

Sincerely,
L. L. Williams

-- L. L. Williams (Y2kcourse@aol.com), March 08, 2000.

Paula's expertise is in Social and Organizational Learning. That preety much makes her an expert on embedded systems.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), March 09, 2000.

Paula Gordon is a perfect example of how con artists can feast at the government trough. She proved herself to be one of the most laughable morons on the Y2K stage last year and everybody that busts their ass to pay taxes should be outraged at her continued activities. Like Hyatt, she comes back like the roach that wont die.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 09, 2000.

Dear L.L. Williams,
Thank you for your interest in the panel programs scheduled for March 15 and April 12.
I would be pleased to ask the panel participants for a copy of the remarks or a summary and post those as possible at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon
There is no way, however, of making sure that this happens since participation in these events is on a volunteer basis.
There is a possibility of the program being audiotaped for later radio broadcast. If this occurs, I will be sure to post information on my website and on various forums, including the Grassroot Information Coordination Center's website and TY2K.
Some papers from conferences and programs have also been posted at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon Click on Meetings and on Conferences.
Many of the past programs that the GW Y2K Program (RPSOL) has sponsored were videotaped (including the entire July conference). Information about their availability can be found at the above website. Much of the material discussed in these past programs is still totally pertinent to the concerns that will be the focus of the March 15 meeting. In this light, you may find the following of particular interest:
~ the panels on embedded systems that are available online from a link on the website above (another on embedded systems from the July 1999 conference is only available on videotape and is not available online - see http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon for information on how to obtain the conference videotapes),
~ the panel on nuclear power plant safety (also available on videotape ~ also see the July Conference section of my website for a summary of a portion of that July 28, 1999 panel),
~ a presentation by Mark Frautschi on railroads (link available on my website and information about a videotape of the presentation), and
~ a presentation on the oil and gas sector (from the July 1999 conference available on video - see http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon for details on how to obtain. Also a paper on this subject by Patrice Kaufman is available in the section on the July Conference.)
A Nathan Cummings Foundation grant allowed us to videotape all of the July Conference. (By the way ~ in response to a concern expressed by another poster ~ no government funding has supported any of the GW-sponsored efforts. And save for a January 1999 DOD-related three day workshop in Rhode Island where I was an invited participant, I have not personally received any payment from the government for any of my Y2K-related efforts.)
There are a number of videotaped programs that can be seen online at the link available at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon In addition C-SPAN still had two GW sponsored programs on their website last time I looked. The most recent one is November 23, 1999. They can be viewed online or purchased.
The entire idea behind the Y2K efforts that I have helped organize through GW's RPSOL program is to get a better understanding of the nature and scope of the problem, to help raise awareness about this and the approaches that could be taken and still can be taken to addressing the problem. I have a continuing concern for unfolding developments, particularly those which affect public health and safety. I have a continuing concern as well for the public policy process, particularly as it relates to complicated large scale problems and challenges threatening society and feel that the threats and challenges posed by Y2K and embedded systems have neither been well understood by policymakers nor adequately addressed.
I am attaching a posting to TBY2K that contains my most recently posted thoughts on the subject. I also would draw your attention to the January 17, 2000 comments that can be found in the "Comments, Essays, and Op-Ed" section at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon
I hope that this information and the materials that I have mentioned prove helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Paula Gordon
EXCERPT OF POSTED COMMENTS ON TB 2000 DISCUSSION FORUM BY PAULA GORDON (2/3/2000) CONCERNING Y2K & EMBEDDED SYSTEMS ISSUES
This Washington Post article by Rajiv Chandrasekaran concerning Y2K remediation efforts in Jamaica is a very interesting one and adds to our understanding of why some countries seemed to fare so much better than had been predicted. The report did not, however, address some other key related issues. The report did not indicate the major difficulties that remain in assessing many other aspects of what happened domestically as well as globally. It also failed to acknowledge the difficulties in assessing what is happening now.
I will try to describe some of these other "pieces of the puzzle" briefly here and later in public meetings as well as in material to be posted soon on my website at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon In the meantime, here are some of the key issues:
I. The Public is Still in the Dark Concerning What Happened and What is Happening.
On the one hand, only a fraction of the problems that occurred and that are occurring have been either widely reported or received more than cursory attention in the media. This has left most people who tend not to be following developments on the web with the impression that there were and are far fewer failures than is case.
II. Initiatives that Decreased Actual Failure Rates Abroad.
And on the other hand, there were actions taken behind the scenes that helped minimize infrastructure disruptions. These were actions beyond the kinds of actions noted in the Post article. (I have discussed the "powering down" of the infrastructure in my January 17 "Comments and Impact Ratings" piece in the "Comments" section at my GW website and will not include it again here.) Some of the actions that are noted below in Item II are continuing.
******
I. The Public is Still in the Dark Concerning What Happened and What is Happening
A few of the reasons that the public does not know about the majority of the failures that occurred and are occurring are as follows:
A) The term "failure" has often been redefined. Do you remember the African nation in the first few days after the rollover that revealed that they had had a failure, but they had not reported it as a failure because they implemented their contingency plan immediately. This, it turns out, was not an isolated incident of unreported failures.
Many of those reporting tended to redefine the word "failure" to mean "reportable failure". Failures were not necessarily reported if contingency plans were implemented. Implementation of contingency plans could include:
~ taking a system offline and/or shutting the system, the plant, utility, or the pipeline, etc., down, and
~ going to manual, and/or
~ implementing some other "work around".
Such "failures" were not technically considered to be "failures" and were not reported or not reported fully. When and as the list of failures in the U.S., as well as failures around the globe becomes widely known, many people may well be quite surprised to find how many incidents were kept and are being kept from them.
According to one authoritative source, there were over 6000 reports to the Information Coordination Center in the first five days of the New Year alone. This probably represents a tenth or less of the failures that actually occurred and a far smaller fraction of the number of problems that have become evident after the first five days of the New Year and that still appear to be on the rise in early February.
B. Getting the true story out can be risky. Those who know what has occurred or is occurring in a company, plant, a government organization, etc., etc, may be find themselves in one of two positions:
~ keeping that information internal to the organization or
~ disclosing that information internally and/or externally.
Internal disclosure (if the problems are not known by upper management) can result in the "messenger" being "shot". Anyone who has been the bearer of bad news in an organization, may be all to familiar with this kind of reaction. Of course, it does not apply to all organizations. Some organizational cultures encourage open communication and the sharing of bad news. When the stakes get very high, however, that too can change. The stakes can involve a company's bottom line, the CEO's or the company's future, the company's reputation, questions of liability, insurance and reinsurance issues, and accountability and liability on the part of directors and officers. The stakes can also involve a country's reputation and even, the economic stability of a nation.
External disclosure can result in all kinds of other problems that "whistleblowers" can have. I will be touching on these matters in new Parts of my White Paper which will be posted in the next few weeks (at the same website noted above).
There are few companies that disclosed in their SEC filings prior to January 1, 2000 serious Y2K and embedded systems remediation problems. It will be interesting to see what the next SEC filings reveal.
Other clues concerning what is really happening can be found in the law suits being filed, the insurance claims being filed, and the claims being filed with reinsurers. For a long list of references concerning sites that are reporting problems (including TB 2000) and providing information concerning law suits and insurance claims, see my January 17, 2000 "Comments and Impact Ratings" piece. It can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon Click on "Comments, Essays, & Op-Ed Pieces".
II. Initiatives that Decreased Actual Failure Rates Abroad
There were behind-the-scenes efforts that apparently only a few knew about and only a relatively few know about now.
~ As the Post article points out, countries like Jamaica, along with many other countries, started late, but benefitted by the lessons learned and the resources that were available to them.
~ In addition, multinational companies that had a definite vested interest in making sure that the infrastructure continued to function in the countries where they had a presence, made major contributions to remediation efforts of those countries.
~ Perhaps, of most critical importance, however, may be role played by the U.S. Department of Defense in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State. DOD and the State Department apparently played a major behind-the-scenes role in doing what needed to be done to help ensure that the infrastructure continued to function in a whole host of nations. They served as catalysts along with multinational corporations and other public and private sector interests in helping to ensure that remediation challenges were addressed.
So, we have a situation where on the one hand, the results were and are far worse than we have been led to believe and on the other hand there were some behind-the-scenes efforts that help explain the "apparent" results.
This leaves us with a kind of parallel universe of plausible explanations and assessments. The challenge is to try to sort out the apparent from the actual.
Many who frequent TB 2000, the Grassroot Information Coordination Center site, the Humpty Dumpty Y2K site and other public and private sector sites, have obviously been trying to do that. In my efforts, I have come to a preliminary conclusion that, irony of ironies, the U.S. is still among the most vulnerable country in the world when it comes to Y2K and embedded systems problems. This includes the problems that have already been experienced, the problems that are being experienced now, and the problems that will become evident over the coming year. Of course, the most obvious reason for this vulnerability is that the U.S. has the most technology. The U.S. had the most to remediate. Another is, that with some major exceptions (including apparently to date the work done on the electric power grid), there were not the same kind of proactive, crisis-oriented efforts going on here as there evidently were elsewhere in the world. Specifically, it appears that there is a continuing vulnerability in some of the highest hazard sectors in the U.S., along with a significant portion of local and county governments, and small and medium-sized businesses, along with others that I will mention shortly.
While U.S. public and private sector interests were working to minimize possible infrastructure disruptions in many parts of the world, a significant percentage of some major sectors in the U.S. were either not remediated or not fully remediated. These sectors included significant percentages of the following:
~ local and county jurisdictions
~ small and medium sized businesses
~ small and medium sized chemical plants
It was public knowledge prior to the New Year that there were refineries and oil and gas pipeline companies in the U.S. that were not going to be able to remediate fully or were not planning to remediate fully. Some major producers of oil around the world also decided to fix on failure and did not remediate fully.
It is therefore not surprising that there has been an unprecedented surge in the number of problems being experienced by refineries. There has been an unprecedented surge in the number of pipeline ruptures, pipelines of all kinds. There has been an unprecedented surge in the number of explosions involving natural gas, methane, and propane worldwide since the beginning of January. According to a researcher who has done a report on this topic, this latter fact can be confirmed by checking OSHA reports, the UN's version of OSHA, Product Safety Lists, and other publicly available sources. There have been an unsettlingly high number of plane and train crashes and problems here and abroad, sometimes with the same systems being at fault or suspected of being at fault.
According to public statements made in December of 1999, the Information Coordination Center (ICC) collected baseline data that would make comparisons easy between the incidence of such problems after 1/1/2000 and comparable period in prior years. I have not heard any mention of this baseline data since that December briefing. I hope that this data will be made available soon, along with the thousands of incident reports that have been accumulated by the ICC.
The ICC apparently is not making the connection between any of the refinery, pipeline, plane, train, nuclear power plant problems, etc., on the one hand and Y2K and embedded systems-related problems on the other hand. If they are, such connections have not been made apparent to the media and the public.
In order to find reports on problems in each sector, one has to know where to look. (See the list of references in the "Comments and Impact Ratings" piece that I mentioned above.)
According to an authoritative source, companies producing fuel additives, base chemical producers, complex hydrocarbon solvent producers, and nuclear power plants are among those likely to be most vulnerable (and in many cases) are among those proving to be vulnerable to Y2K and embedded system-related problems.
According to a software engineer familiar with the situation, the airplane fuel problem in Australia involved the sticking of a valve and inaccurate computer data.
According to news reports, the ecological disaster in Brazil involved a pipeline rupture and inaccurate computer data in a device monitoring the pipeline.
According to a software engineer, there are also some large chemical plants in the U.S. that did not fully remediate. They are planning on fixing those unremediated systems on failure as the need arises.
There will be a series of monthly panel programs beginning February 9 at George Washington University focusing on all of the issues mentioned here.....
(End of excerpt)

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), March 09, 2000.

Paula, let me suggest that you take your road show over to the folks at Eds new closed society on the EZ board. There you will find most of the zombies that bought into your BS last year. Here, I think you will find a less receptive audience due to the atmosphere of unrestrained thought and comment. I still have a mental picture of you and 2 or 3 other grant vampires making fools of yourselves on C- Span. Ill give you an A+ for tenacity and an F- for self-esteem. Where the hell is Bill Proxmire when you need him?

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 09, 2000.

Ms. Gordon,

While I tend to agree with "Sifting", I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt...if you release a copy of the remarks or a summary, and post those remarks on this forum. If you can release it on your website, it would only take you another five minutes to release it here also, right? I'm sure you are aware that there are readers here that do not have the time to chase multiple sites, (myself included) so your cooperation would be very much appreciated.

I'll be anxiously awaiting your response.

Sincerely,

L. L. Williams

-- L. L. Williams (Y2Kcourse@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

Don't hold your breath L.L.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 10, 2000.

Paula Gordon wrote: "The entire idea behind the Y2K efforts that I have helped organize through GW's RPSOL program is to get a better understanding of the nature and scope of the problem, to help raise awareness about this and the approaches that could be taken and still can be taken to addressing the problem. I have a continuing concern for unfolding developments, particularly those which affect public health and safety. I have a continuing concern as well for the public policy process, particularly as it relates to complicated large scale problems and challenges threatening society and feel that the threats and challenges posed by Y2K and embedded systems have neither been well understood by policymakers nor adequately addressed."
It seems to me that the GW RPSOL program utterly failed in it's attempt to "to get a better understanding of the nature and scope of the problem."
Being a native of Washington and one familiar with GW University in many ways, I find it embarrassing that this charade is continuing.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 10, 2000.

Dear L.L. Williams,
Thank you for your posting.
As I noted before, I would be pleased to ask the panel participants for a copy of the remarks or a summary and post those as possible at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon
There is however no way of making sure that this happens since participation in these events, including my own, is on a volunteer or pro bono basis. I very much regret that there are no funds available to pay someone for their time to write up summaries.
If summaries are provided, I will be sure to post them both here and on my website. If material is provided that is extremely lengthy, I will be sure to post an exact URL to the site where they may be found so that there will be no trouble in finding them.
There is now a possibility that the program may be audiotaped or videotaped and made available on the Internet. An audiotape of the program may also be played on the radio. If any of these occur, I will be plan on posting information on my website and on various forums, including the Grassroot Information Coordination Center's website and TY2K.
Thank you for your interest. I hope your have found the references and postings that I have already provided you of interest.
Sincerely,

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), March 10, 2000.

Good gawd, Paula, you've either got a very thick skin or you have a robot doing your postings here.
Ok, let's point out some more BS that shows that you don't and never did know what you are/were talking about. My comments in CAPS, and no I'm not shouting.
"According to one authoritative source..."
WHICH ONE WOULD THAT BE?
"According to a researcher who has done a report on this topic..."
WHO'S THAT? AN "INTERNET RESEARCHER"?
"According to public statements made in December of 1999,"
WHOSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS?
"In order to find reports on problems in each sector, one has to know where to look."
LIKE WHERE? TB2000? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH.
"According to an authoritative source,..."
NEED I ASK AGAIN?
"According to a software engineer familiar with the situation..."
AGAIN?
According to news reports
WHICH NEWS SOURCES?
"According to a software engineer..."
AGAIN?
Your continued assumption that TB2000 was a reputable source of information coupled with your use of other vague sources would send me ROFLMAO if it wasn't so sad.
Why don't you go take a walk and look at the cherry blossoms or something? You need to get out of the "parallel universe" you've been living in.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 10, 2000.

Ms. Gordon,
Thank you so very much for having the courtesy to post here.
The gentleman above asked some very good questions, but I, however, would only like a copy (or even a summary) of the discussions from these four people:

"Michael P. Harden, Ph.D., President and CEO of Century Technology Services, Inc. and embedded systems expert

Gerald Poje, Ph.D., Member, Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board (invited)

Stuart Umpleby, Professor of Management Science and Director, Research Program for Social and Organizational Learning (RPSOL), The George Washington University"

Paula Gordon, Director of Special Projects, RPSOL and Visiting Research Professor, GW ( http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon )

I appreciate your efforts, and thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

L. L. Williams

-- L. L. Williams (Y2Kcourse@aol.com), March 10, 2000.

Buddy,
About your concern regarding the citing of "authoritative sources" or the failure to name specific sources: I did not take the time in the writing that I have posted here to explain why these specific individuals could not be named. I should not have assumed that people would understand. I am doing some writing about Y2K-related whisleblowing concerns and related matters and hope to have it posted soon. I will be addressing some similar issues there. In the meantime, here is a short response. Please accept my apologies upfront: I will probably not be able to engage in further dialogue for at least the near term. But I offer you these thoughts now because your concerns deserve a response.
Reasons for not being able to use names in the instances you cited can be wide ranging. Some of the reasons can include any or all of the following:
~ Sources have requested that their names not be used.
~ Sources have only agreed to share information if I promised not to reveal their names.
Some of the reasons for their wishing to remain anonymous may include the following:
~ They feel that their position might be in jeopardy.
~ They may feel constrained by their position in their company, agency, or organization and may not feel that they can fully forthcoming.
~ They may feel concerned that their professional reputation will be harmed.
~ They may expect that their character, integrity, or motives would be impugned if their name were to be connected with messages, information, or perspectives that are unpopular, unwelcome, controversial or readily misunderstood.
~ They may be kept by non-disclosure agreements from sharing information.
~ They may be concerned about their personal liability or the liability of the organization that they are part of.
~ They may be concerned that people will misunderstand or misconstrue what they say. They may not have the time or the inclination to help people understand what it is they are trying to say. An easy way around this is to put your ideas forward anonymously.
~ They may have been subject to direct or indirect threats.
~ There are those who are most comfortable talking with people in their own area of specialization. In fact there are some experts who, for whatever reasons, are not at all comfortable communicating their views. Being anonymous provides them cover. Potential embarrassment, as well as potential conflict can be avoided by remaining anonymous.
~ Some individuals have gotten burned badly when they have tried to share important information. They may agree to passing on information anonymously because they do not wish to risk getting burned again. There are others who will no longer share information even on any anonymous basis out of fear of repercussions.
~ It can be very hard for some people to discuss Y2K and embedded systems issues with objectivity. There are many people who do not wish to get involved in discussions that could give rise to rancorous debate or attack. Therefore they remain anonymous. Some will drop out of the discussion altogether.
Re two other concerns you raised:
~ You mentioned some public statements: these were by John Koskinen concerning the ICC. These were made in a press briefing that I believe occurred during late November or early December. I suspect a press release could be easily found on the http://www.y2k.gov website. If not, a call to the President's Council would probably result in a date of the press conference. You want the press conference that focused on the gathering of baseline data to be used in conjunction with ICC efforts. (The phone number should be on the y2k.gov website. If not, the White House switchboard will work. That number is available through information.)
~ Regarding news reports about Brazil's pipeline-related ecological disaster: there was at least one article with the specific information that mentioned the inaccurate computer data. As I recall it was a newspaper article or a release from a recognized legitimate mainstream news service. The article was posted on TB2000 or GICC or both. If you were to post a question on TB2K asking for the article, I suspect you will get an answer within the hour. Sorry I did not fully reference the report in the above posting. I know in general where it is, but have not taken the time as yet to put it in a quickly retrievable place.
It is always interesting to get feedback. It can often be helpful as well. I have tried to provide fuller explanations, analysis, and references in the writing that has gone into my White Paper that can be found at my website. I have not always taken as much time as I should to fully reference other things that I have posted. I hope you find value in the work that I plan to be able to post at my website soon.

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), March 10, 2000.

So, the question being considered is:
IS Y2K PAST OR IS IT AN ISSUE THAT REQUIRES CONTINUING ATTENTION?
Given the list of panelists, if the "answer" to this question is NOT that y2k "requires continuing attention", but rather that nothing much ever happened or will happen, I will publicly EAT the written record of these proceedings. This is basically a search for someone among the remaining few True Believers who might provide a lead to taxpayer funding of a pure boondoggle.
Before nothing happened, Paula Gordon might be forgiven bone ignorance. By now, there's no excuse for this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 10, 2000.

Hi Flint,
Because of your mention of government funds, I thought I best mention that, as I noted in a posting above in this thread, to date and to the best of my knowledge, no government money has funded any of the Y2K conferences or panel programs that I have been involved in organizing through GW. Also, I guess it should be noted since this might be the source of the confusion: GW University is not a government institution. Perhaps, some people are assuming that it is. It is not.
Please feel free to write me directly if you have further questions about this matter.
Regards,

-- Paula Gordon (pgordon@erols.com), March 10, 2000.

Paula:
I'll assume I wasn't clear. I find it hard to imagine for-profit corporations funding any such "continuing attention" of what, to them, was an ordinary (if large scale) maintenance project dealt with on the whole by ordinary maintenance techniques. Or at least, funding them for the *purpose* of discovering what they already know from their own IT professionals and engineers. I can never guess what someone might consider "good PR".
As for GWU not being a government institution, this is somewhat disingenuous. Yes, it's a private institution. Care to hazard an estimate of the proportion of total income GWU gets in the form of grants, or other sources of money that passed through government on the way to GWU, rather than directly from the students? 60%? 70%
Finally, I notice no comment from you on the "findings" of this panel discussion. I ask you in all honesty -- is there *anything* that *anyone* could present that could *possibly* persuade you to go home, put this to bed, and get on with something more useful? You are there, face it, to present WHY you think you should be supported in your continued "study" of what isn't happening and won't, and NOT there to learn why it's moot any longer.
Anyhow, Ed Yourdon has a much more receptive forum just down the road. I'm sure he would be absolutely *overjoyed* to support your efforts. And his congregation seems highly attentive to his, uh, enterprises.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 10, 2000.

As per your own posts re: "Why didn't Italy melt down" and "First steps towards Y2K cost-benefit analysis" and our own discussions and exchange of ideas, it doesn't seem to me that much out of the way to have a least someone else (other than us two) try to analyze and describe Y2K as fully as possible in view of the fact that, any way we slice it, this hungry and grieven world spent at least several hundred billion dollars through the Y2K process, probably more.
It just doesn't sound fit for our free-thinking, un-censored, intellectually brilliant Flint to make such a fuss about a subject matter which deserves clarification at the very least in view of the sheer amount of money (by any standard) and effort spent in something which may not have deserved it.
If Y2K ever becomes of world importance (as originally expected by doomers) it deserves research, clarification, etc., for obvious reasons.
If Y2K continues to be as mild (non-existant?) as it seems to be it still deserves serious investigation so that we don't ever make again the mistake of taking seriously something that wasn't.
Both of your posts mentioned above are of utmost importance Flint, as I said. Let's have others pursue the same attempt of valid Y2K input.
Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), March 11, 2000.

George:
While I agree with you that y2k has provided us with an opportunity to learn many lessons, I do not believe this is what Paula Gordon has in mind in terms of "continuing attention." I'm interested in the best autopsy we can perform to discover why the dragon died, and indeed how much of a dragon there ever was. Paula Gordon is doing her utmost to convince anyone she can that the dragon is still alive and breathing fire nobody else can sense.
So I'd like to know how we came to create such an amazing near- fiction (given our current experience), while Paula Gordon is trying to *sustain* the fiction just in case there's money or a career to be made. She and a few others gambled big on the wrong horse, and either do not feel they can "survive" letting go of the tiger's tail, or else they believe (possibly correctly) that there are *enough* ex- fearmongers who can't yet let go to milk them just a little longer.
I'd be quite interested in a seminar on how we got bamboozled. I'm not interested in a seminar intended to keep the bamboozle alive.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 11, 2000.

O.Kay Flint buddy. We agree, at least in half of the agenda, which is a lot! I suggest: let the Paula Gordons of this world do whatever they want, and please (PLEASE!) let's also hold a HUGE Seminar on how "we got bamboozled" as you say.
But let's not stay still !! Y2K is/has been way too large/too costly to do otherwise. And, by the way, wouldn't "Keeping the bamboozle alive" type Seminars be a useful input for your how/who "We got bamboozled" debates? I mean, think about it Flint. Y2K debate can't just pass and go as Y2K itself (supposedly)
Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), March 11, 2000.

I know what happened and why. I understand how it got where it did and why it didn't turn out minutly as expected. But I don't have much of a talant for putting thoughts and ideas into words, especially not writing pages of stuff that says nothing.
Can I get a grant from someone to write it up and explain it? It deals in large part with technology and not a small part in psychology and sociology.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), March 12, 2000.

Bait. I can't resist. I've posted on and off about the LASCO C3 (http://lasco- www.nrl.navy.mil/java/lastC3.html) site. When I tumbled onto the old forum I found an item about LASCO. I was enchanted by the imagery, and printed multiple screens for my archives. When the mil date read 19100, I printed more screens. When it was corrected, I howled. Then, when I found that the posted GMT time matched HOUSTON time, I asked the board-what does this mean (previously there was a six hour differential). I wonder if the "original" GMT was ever corrected. It appears that the time now displayed is linked to enquiring entity.I asked an IT specialist about this in January, he shrugged and said the 19100 expression would be used as a new standard if the conflict were not remedied.. What does this have to do with the controversy over embedded chips? Suppose, just suppose, that "real" machine time (based on GMT) has never been adjusted. There are many systems that relied on compatible date interpretation, and that may not be de facto.
It would appear from our sibling board (GICC) that a few odd things are and have been occuring. Need to be thinking about this, but the majority of posters have not followed or documented this issue closely enough to be aware of it.

-- mike in houston (mmorris67@hotmail.com), March 12, 2000.

I still believe we have yet to carry out what Flint has called "the best autopsy we can perform on why/how the dragon died and how much of a dragon there ever was".
Someone (whoever, Universities, think tanks, the CIA... hell, whoever) must do this for the sake of the several hundred billion dollars spent on Y2K worldwide, maybe unnecessarily.
Thus, we would finally find out the etiology and the epidemiology of Y2K. Until then, we are just 'playing games'.
Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), March 12, 2000.

OK, Paula, all those reasons for sources not being cited may be possible. However, it seems to me that the main reason is that the sources don't know what they're talking about. The entire basis for your continued seminars is speculation that has already been proven wrong.
Sorry for my seeming a little ticked off in this thread, but the continued attempt at giving legitimacy to a bunch of academics with no hands-on Y2K experience and nothing but unfounded speculation ticks me off to no end.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 13, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ