X-no-Archive:yes
Things are not quite that bad here. It's just the new owners want our
paradigms to shift... Projects are supposed to have a fixed scope. Anything
that would have significant impact on that project is considered outside
that scope, and becomes the next, follow on project.

Our application Y2K project 'birthed' several smaller, follow on projects,
and one large one. The large one required us to review all OS & third-party
software levels (yes, this should have been done * before * the
applications) on production systems, and to upgrade to be Y2K compliant, and
vendor supported. Where upgrades were required, we were to then determine
optimal versions, meaning that if it was not much more work to go to a more
recent version than the least common denominator, use the more recent
version.

I had the privilege of being 'coordinator' for all non-mainframe platforms.
This euphemism meant that my name was listed in the project plan for
deliverable whose work was done by others, leaving me with two tools to get
that work done: begging, and 'offering' / threatening to try to do the work
myself, since the real performers' names were on the actual deliverables. On
those, I was listed as a co-author, while actually just culling and
compiling material for others to review and edit. I'm glad that's over.

This of course birthed other, smaller projects, such as upgrading Oracle
from versions that Oracle decided to stop supporting (I am very much
indebted to Richard Gambrell to posting information on this issue, on this
list).

One way or another, the bulk of the work is done, with only a very few bits
left to do.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com