Well, Gary North has spotlighted another good one. Hope this wasn't addressed below and I missed it. The September 30, 1999 milestone looks like it will be missed by the Feds, according to a current report:

www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5915

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999

Answers

I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

No! Why ... we're dumbfounded!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 28, 1999.

-Gasp-

Not AGAIN........let's be charitable and give them two more tries. Do we have time for that?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 28, 1999.

Will Continue,

LOL, I love your response. Hmmmm, I just wonder if maybe, maybe there are some high level feds saying exactly the same thing? Maybe even Koskinen?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Damnit, can't we put this off until after the election?

-- Tipper (futurein@whitehouse.com), August 28, 1999.

Also see the link with this snip about the missed September 30, 1998 deadline:

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1998/1005/fcw-newsy2kshort-10-5-98.html

[snip]

The first major Year 2000 milestone passed almost unnoticed last week.

Sept. 30 [1998] was a target date set by the Clinton administration for agencies to have all their mission-critical systems renovated, yet it slipped quietly past many federal agencies, which are still frantically fixing their computer systems, and past many critics.

[snip]

...and also see the link with these snips about the missed March 31, 1999 deadline:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0399/033199t1.htm

[snip]

Since federal computer systems will not be 100 percent Y2K-ready by today's governmentwide deadline, the Senate's special Y2K committee is planning a review of contingency plans and testing efforts next month.

[snip]

Bennett repeatedly has said that a 90 percent compliance rate is not compliant because every aspect of mission critical computer systems must be ready for them to work.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 28, 1999.

Thanks Linkmeister, always enlightning to review the past. I guess the pollies just kinda sweep it under the rug so to speak.

Do you remember the government reports we received where they showed the number of mission critical each month or so and the number remediated? has this report gone by the wayside? It was interesting to see the number of mission critical systems go down with each report thus assuring that the percentage of remediated systems went up more dramatically.

Also, we haven't heard a peep about those other 73,000 Frderal government systems that were not deemed mission critical.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

Ray,

You bring up a good point, namely all those "non-mission critical" systems. Often the mission critical are only 10-15% of all the previous systems that were in use. In the case of the Federal Govt the mission critical systems are less than 10%, some say as little as 5% of all the systems they are currently using. But the public seems to think that mission critical is the only thing important, and in fact relates "progress" reports to all systems, not just a small percent of the systems. Big mistake in reasoning going on here.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Gordon, somewhere I read an article that named some of these non mission critical systems the government has and as I recall it was an eye opener.

These systems number in the tens of thousands and to my knowledge thier remediated status has never been discussed.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

" Often the mission critical are only 10-15% of all the previous systems that were in use."

At least no one can say we didn't get the fat trimmed off the federal government...now the thing to remember, if things are no so bad that govt is near incapicitated, will be to challenge them when they tell us they want to spend the next 10 years and billions of $$ bringing those non-critical systems back online.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 28, 1999.