|
Comment: |
This was posted on Peter de Jager's forum. It makes sense:
AS A CUSTOMER, when we first sent letters to our suppliers, we would get a response back (usually stating "Our product isn't affected by 2000"), then a few months later receive another letter stating that the first letter was incorrect (minor patch will be required), then still months later, we would get something "official" (upgrade to latest version is a prerequisite, etc.). Personally, I am more comfortable getting a company-approved statement from a web site than a written response from an unknown person in a company that doesn't even have a Year 2000 Program Office. . . .the primary goals of these letters are to make sure the vendor is aware of the problem (and has a thorough understanding of y2k), is actively working on fixing the problem (using a methodical approach), considers it to be a high priority, and to get an indication as to when the fix will be available, and the order of magnitude cost to us.
|