I check in on this place every once in a while. It seems to me that most of the headlines being posted have nothing to do with Y2K.

Are the GICC analysts still analyzing?

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

Answers

Can we prove that the stories have nothing to do with "Y2K"?

The date, or the dilemma?

-- Antoine Neron (metis@2000now.org), March 13, 2000.

Analysis takes data and time. The more information we get about the number and type of problems being seen, the more we are able to determine if the "noise" level in our computer-based systems has increased since January 1, 2000. By noise level I mean that each system is configured to continue proper operation with some amount of minor errors, and to safely shut down if that amount is exceeded or any "major" errors occur. Date-related errors may be placing more and unexpected types of errors into our systems and causing unexpected problems to occur. However, the only way to find out if that is happening is to collect data and conduct a statistical analysis. Any and all info is welcomed and needed.

-- Dave Hall (dhall@enteract.com), March 14, 2000.

It seems to me that the further away we get from January 1, 2000, the more carefully-worded are Y2k news articles, for various reasons.

Companies must protect themselves from lawsuits, otherwise they could risk losing insurance if they failed to disclose information before the rollover. Well-paid PR folks know how to make companies appear viable in the eyes of stockholders and John Q Public.

Try searching an online newspaper with the keyword "Y2k" or "bug". Guaranteed, you'll find numerous articles about fireworks celebrations and "Y2k was a bust".

We've posted just a small number of Y2k failures, many of which can't be accessed in online archives. In addition, numerous international news sources are either inaccessible or written in foreign languages.

IMHO, most (not all) Y2k articles are disguised under keywords like the following: glitch, computer problem, system problem, hiccup, loop hitch, flitch, flaw, outage, shutdown, spill, and leak. Surely there will be other additions as we near 2001.

At this point in time, every problem that occurs in the infrastructure is suspect. As reports come in, I think we'll more easily fit together pieces of the big puzzle and discard the rest.

-- Lee Maloney (leemaloney@hotmail.com), March 15, 2000.

Steve Davis and I founded this forum specifically to answer your question. We realized that nobody else "official" in the world would be collecting the glitches. We felt that the data would be lost to history if we didn't at least attmept to collect the story. There's no question that some of the posts here are not Y2K related. The challenge is, figuring out which ones they are.

Dave Hall is correct when he states that analysis, in this case, will take place as time methodically lays out the data for us to examine.

Lee Maloney is also correct when she presents the different words that potential Y2K "issues" are reported under.

Frankly, the GICC analysts (10 of us) are completely overwhelmed with information. Not only are we looking for patterns and cross category relationships, but now we are unexpectedly having to excavate it up from these articles and sources. We've had to become archeologists, journalists, investigators, etc., etc.

Everybody who comes here is welcome to analyze. Feel free to point out what you suspect - that's what we're all about here. If there's a pattern that you see, go check it out and let us know. Your work is as valuable as any of ours.

-- Jen Bunker (jen@bunkergroup.com), March 15, 2000.