The letter from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Technical Activities Board Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group to the U.S. Congress supporting the passage of liability legislation is _very_ interesting reading. Thanks to OR (orwelliator) for submitting it to the Yourdon Forum at:

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

The entire letter is well worth reading, but here are a couple of paragraphs:

"Y2K Is a Long Term, Not Short Term, Problem. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name `Year 2000' itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade. Y2K is much more about the dates that can span the century boundary represented in data that must be processed by software than it is about any calendar time or clock issues. Because of the vast amounts of these, the complex intertwining among them and our less than complete understanding of the whole, it will take years for the infrastructure to `calm down' after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it. The current prevention phase is only the beginning."

"1.4 Complexity Kills. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test `everything at once.' Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, ALMOST A COMMANDMENT, for widespread failures. " [caps mine]

Folks, after you read all the reasons the IEEE came up with to support federal legislation to limit Y2K liability, you can ask yourself if those same reasons aren't _plenty_ enough to support the need for preparations on an individual and business level. I'm rather stunned, myself. This engineering group appears to put forth nearly every Y2K argument for potential problems that I've seen. I actually had to laugh because some of the topic points could have come straight from Gary North's site. (Isn't it amazing that potential Y2K problems suddenly become serious when there are worries about being sued?)

Oh, I can't resist, even if it will make this post longer. Here are the paragraph headings after the IEEE statement, "In particular, for your consideration we offer the following points pertaining to the technical realities of Y2K."

1. Prevention of all Y2K Failures Was Never Possible

1.1 `Y2K Compliant' Does Not Equal `No Y2K Failures.'

1.2 All Problems Are Not Visible or Controllable.

1.3 Incoming Data May Be Bad or Missing.

1.4 Complexity Kills.

2. Determining Legal Liability Will Be Very Difficult.

2.1 There Is a Shared Responsibility Between Buyers, Sellers and Users of Technology.

2.2 Many Things Are Outside the Control of Any Defendant.

2.3 There Will Be a Strong Defense of Impracticability.

3. Complexity and Time Negates Any Legal Liability Incentive.

4. The Threat of Legal Action Is a Dangerous Distraction at a Critical Time.

4.1 Y2K Is a Long Term, Not Short Term, Problem.

4.2 Rapid and Effective Organizational Adaptability Will Be a Prime Necessity.

4.3 Lawsuits, Actual or Threatened, Will Divert Requisite Resources.

4.4 Judicial System Overload Is Another Danger.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Answers

Very interesting letter Bonnie,

The question is : are we ready are not -- or when is a company ready ?

and not is it 100% failure proof.

About the long term : the burst of failures will be on the millenniumnight, but we are ready for it after several time travels with our systems and solid contingency plans.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Folks, after you read all the reasons the IEEE came up with to support federal legislation to limit Y2K liability, you can ask yourself if those same reasons aren't _plenty_ enough to support the need for preparations on an individual and business level. I'm rather stunned, myself. This engineering group appears to put forth nearly every Y2K argument for potential problems that I've seen. I actually had to laugh because some of the topic points could have come straight from Gary North's site.

I agree. It is a sobering document, for two reasons: its source and its timing. I don't think you could find a better description of Y2K's complexity and intractability in fewer words than what is contained in that document. (They must have, or have had access to, a very good writer at IEEE.) But it's June 1999!

BTW, all those technically-incompetent, rumor-spreading, fear- mongering, panic-baiting, Y2K money grubbers at IEEE should be ashamed of themselves. :-)

Heck, don't they know the sun is gonna shine and the birdies go tweet- tweet on January 1, 2000? Geesh.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Menno, I'd say the question for any business or individual is not just "Are we ready?" but, "Is every business and infrastructure segment which can impact me also ready?" I'm glad to hear your company has solid contingency plans. My family also has contingency plans. I hope yours does, too.

From the same IEEE letter:

" Many systems in government and industry are mistakenly being treated as if they were independent and fixed in the most expedient way for each of them. When this "Humpty Dumpty" is put back together again, it will not work as expected without complete testing, which is unlikely (see COMPLEXITY KILLS below)."

"In the best case organizations can only address those things they can see and those things they have control over. Given this reality, many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations jurisdictional control to correct. This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties."

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

I'm proud to be a member. :-)

--aj

CODE OF ETHICS

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1. to accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

4. to reject bribery in all its forms;

5. to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences;

6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;

7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;

10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

Approved by the IEEE Board of Directors, August 1990

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Just to enhance Bonnie's original post, here's a link to the IEEE page that has the letter:

http://www.ie eeusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99june09.html

This letter really bothers me. IEEE has been conspicuous by their absence and totally "missing in action" on Y2k. I know that Dick Mills, as an IEEE member, has personally tried on many occasions (without success) to engage IEEE leadership in this issue. Now it comes down to limiting liability, and all of a sudden IEEE interest is piqued? I ain't buying it. The semiconductor and electronics and electrical equipment manufacturers are the largest consituent base of IEEE. Seems to me they're running scared now.

Bonnie picked out a couple of the salient paragraphs, so I won't repeat them - but this is a good document for everyone to take a full read of. Hit the hotlink above.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

I just came back from the IEEE site and found *another* Y2k liability letter, this one addressed to (erstwhile presidential candidate) John McCain.

http://www.iee eusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99may17.html

A selected quote:

"Regarding recent concerns over liability for Y2K-related problems (i.e., computer/system failures caused by date interpretation problems), the IEEE-USA asserts that, given the history of the growth of computer technology, there has never been a technical way for any large organization to assure they would never experience some kind of business failure due to Y2K. There are just too many variables and connections (internal and external to any organization) for most organizations to assuredly prevent failures by test/find/repair/retesting all possible sources of risk regardless of the level of resources committed to the effort. At this point in time (April, 1999), the die is already cast for most organizations' Y2K-readiness activities, and their direction will not be significantly influenced over the next year by any decisions on liability or other legal concerns."

aaarrrgghhh.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Rick,

Yes it is pretty annoying that the IEEE is only really raising their voice now, seemingly in face of the threat of litigation.

When I first became a member and discovered the IEEE code of ethics I took it too heart. I have been trying to raise awareness of the Y2K threat since I first discovered it in a product line I was working with in 1995.

I suppose it's much like day to day business. I can be proud of the role I play and the members of my group or team, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'm proud of the leadership.

--aj

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Thanks for posting this, Bonnie. This is interesting, and I'd like to see more background on why it was developed.

There have been two y2k related standards developed by IEEE, I think they are 2000.1, and 2000.2, but I believe they were developed by the software side of the organization.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Dan,

I believe these draft standards (they never made it out of the draft stage, AFAIK) relate to date formatting and windowing/encapsulation. Both are also available on the IEEE site.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Thanks Bonnie and Rick for posting this. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Where is the damn press? Has the world gone absolutely mad?

Respectable journalists if you're reading this and you haven't written a story about it, you should quit your job and go paint houses during the remaining time we have left to deal with this crisis.

And to all you engineers who told us what idiots and simpletons we were to worry about cascading failures, Nah, Nah Nanney Nah Nah!

Your own industry says you're wrong. And please don't even try to tell me that they're wrong. You've lost some serious credibility.

God bless America and God bless litigation for bringing out the fearful truth from the electric industry.

We can all go stockpile our candles now. Sorry for my cynicism, but I am hopping mad.

I'm gonna email this damn letter to every newsman email address I can find.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Let's be as spot on as we can about this one, Jim.

IEEE does not represent the electric industry in the U.S. IEEE is a professional society populated primarily by electrical engineers that ostensibly exists primarily to establish standards for electrical and electronic equipment. Most of the electrical appliances (or components in them) in your house have been designed, in some manner, to IEEE standards.

While many design specs in the power industry are based on IEEE standards (particularly component reliability standards and harsh operating environment standards), IEEE does not represent the power industry. As I pointed out in an earlier post, they are more attuned to the electrical, electronic, and semiconductor manufacturing industries.

Any IEEE member reading this (AJ?) can be a bit more specific, if I've mischaracterized IEEE.

This does NOT negate the fact that they've been totally absent, as the primary standards organization for these industries, from the Y2k issue.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

I am a member of IEEE. IEEE as an organization has not offered anything of value to the industry in our Y2K assessment and remediation efforts. EPRI and NEI/NUSMG on the otherhand have been in the forfront in aiding the industry with Y2K information and data. I read the letter referred to above, but I can't find anything but abstract fluff in it - IMHO, the authors are clueless as to Y2K. And by the way, these are the words of a comittee, not Y2K experts. I have their daddy and Rick has their momma, as does anyone here who has truly been involved and studied Y2K. But as always, you be the judge, trot over to http://www.ieee.org and look at all the "heavy" y2K "facts, figures, and data" they have (good luck! ...mostly links..)

And I am truly disappointed in Lane and some of the other doomers for swallowing the drivel in the IEEE "legal" letter so easily and quickly......doomer "candy" if I ever saw it! Puleeze, doomers, play fair! You would never let ME get away with posting abstract "mush" like this.... Regards,

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Apologies for not having my facts straight. Thanks Rick.

That being said, this document and the one to McCain should have at least made the press. Certainly there is plenty of "happy face fluff" to offset it's "doomer" tone.

And sorry to all for contributing to the owl rooster fight. Trying to keep an open mind, but loosing my sanity here rapidly.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Forgive me but- so what. Like we're suppossed to be in grateful awe for a totally LAST MINUTE display, of guilt-riddenly grasping after basic professional DIGNITY!???????

>> SO WHERE WAS THIS LETTER 3-10 YEARS AGO !?

How depressing can it get? Is this saving face or saying - yeh - we're all a bunch of schmucks, and REALLY late, but jeeze this looks beyond bad. (both)

Sweet Jesus, This is merely one more depressingly-hollow Supreme Travesty which *expertly* exemplifies our MATERIALISTICALLY-STUPID 'culture' - - - that will get just what it deserves? Ouch,ouch.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 1999

Bonnie,

This letter is mustard after the meal. The question everybody should ask now is indeed "Is every business and infrastructure segment ready ?" But also "When can you call it ready?".

About my family, they are not worried and have no contingency plans. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Nope, I don't have much anything I'd really like to add.

I'm proud to be a member but not necessarily proud of how the IEEE as an organization has handled Y2K. It's a bureaucracy, it doesn't surprise me.

-aj

-- Anonymous, June 24, 1999

Let's see, the IEEE vs. an anonymous poster named "FactFinder." Wow. A tough call there.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 1999

Got it wrong there Don, it's FactFinder vs. an IEEE committee. I would like to know how many software applications and embedded components the members of this committee have personally performed y2k assessments/testing of. I have a strong suspicion that I have done more direct y2k work than the entire committee combined, based on the nonsense contained in the IEEE "legal letter." I assure you that many other IEEE members working on y2k directly have similar feelings.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, June 29, 1999