There have been enough private queries about the
allocation of votes on the 2002 SIB that I'm
going to respond to both hp3000-L and OpenMPE lists:

First, confession time:  I am (believe it or not)
the person who at the last minute instigated the
change to the 2002 SIB that limited the number of
votes any one person could put on our favorite
Item # 1 to 10:  "Identify a way for users and
developers to continue to run MPE in some
supported fashion after end of HP sales and
support, ...".

Now...:  as one of the most ardent supporters of
this Item;  who was on the committee who drafted
the original version;  and as a Board member of
OpenMPE, Inc., why in the *world* you might ask
would I of all people argue for the "10 vote max"
limit on Item # 1 that was imposed ??..  Easy:

If you could put all 20 votes on Item # 1, there
is no doubt that I would have done that..  And I
would have made a plug for everybody else to do
the same;  and I'm betting a lot of people would
have done that.  And that would IMO have resulted
in bit of a problem;  i.e.:

Whether or not CSY allows # 1 to happen (and I
very much hope they do (and I'm still optomistic
that they will) ), there are CSY Lab engineers
that will be working on MPE and MPE sub-systems
for another 20 months or so.  I'm pretty sure
not all of those engineers can productively be
involved in facilitating Item # 1 (and I doubt
CSY would agree to that even if they could).

So...:  It seems like it would be wise for the
MPE user community to give CSY some guidance on
which of the mostly-LOW-and-MEDIUM effort other
items on the SIB we would like them to finish up
while they are still in the MPE R&D business.
Limiting the number of votes for Item # 1 to 10
seemed like a reasonable way to do that;  i.e.:
Be able to indicate maximum allowable support for
"MPE life after HP", while still voting for other
items HP could work on.

For those who absolutely, positively want to put
every last vote towards "MPE life after HP", it
ended up (thanks to SIGMIGRATE) that the SIB even
accomodates that:  Besides putting 10 votes on
Item # 1, if you wish you can put your other 10
on SIGMIGRATE Item # 19:  "Port MPE and it's
subsystems to Intel or create an MPE emulator for
Linux. In the alternative, enable a third party to
do so."  (Speaking just for myself here) I am
absolutely convinced there is ZERO chance at this
point that CSY will reverse its 11-14 announcement
and launch what would be a huge, *HUGE* project to
port MPE to IA.  HP isn't going to create an MPE
emulator themselves either, because doing that
would fundamentally contradict the core message of
CSY's 11-14 announcement.  Note Jeff V. concurred
with my prior post on that issue.

Therefore, as a practical matter IMO SIGMIGRATE
Item # 19 amounts to the same thing as Item # 1.
Put 10 votes on each one, and you are in effect
saying that is the ONLY thing you want HP to
focus on in the next 20 months.  Since I don't
think they can or will be able to all focus on
Item # 1, I put my other 10 votes on various
other worthwhile enhancements on the list...

Ken Sletten

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *