> From: J Dunlop [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
...
> So, out of the ten most important items voted on by the HP3000
> Community, there are four good answers (basically work will be done on
> these) 3,7,8 and 10, two have no answer 2 and 9, and four have no
> plans 1,4,5 and 6.

Well, on 2 we separated it into current external documentation
being on the net and we said yes; and internal doc being on the net
and we said "we'll get back to you on that". So I think it is fair
to say the users got at least half of a positive reply on the second
most popular item. I say "at least" because originally this item
was focused only on external doc (like at docs.hp.com/mpeix and
the content on Jazz). Internal (not public) documentation was
added sort-of last minute to this item.

> Out of the top 6 items, only item 3 has any definite answer.

Well, I still want .5 credit for 2a) from above :). And, similar to
2 (docs) we separated 3 (parking release) into two pieces: one dealing
with our PowerPatch plans, where we said yes (and John acknowledges
this), and the other dealing with which s/w products, sold today, will
be made available later. This second piece has not been determined yet
but we do hope to have some good words to say by HP World timeframe.
Related to this, we have said we will include SOME add-on s/w with the
new MPE license designed for the PA-RISC platform emulator, so we do
need to get this issue defined and resolved.

> This, in my mind, doesn't seem as though HP's
> response is particularly in sympathy with the HP3000 Community
> wishes/requirements.

I understand this sentiment. In fact the #1 SIB item got almost
twice as many votes as the #2 item, but, what is being asked for
we still are not able to deliver. The user's message is clear. The
SIB process helped you show HP the number of customers that place
value on that item. The SIB process has worked, even if HP has
made a decision to not do some of the resulting top 10. You
can vote for the item again next year, and the year after too (it
worked for CI Functions :). Anyway, I strongly believe that the
process works as long as users voices are being heard by HP,
and they are. We use various criteria in establishing our
roadmap plans for each year and the SIB is an input which we do
use to help establish funding for some of our projects.

> In particular, the most important item, number 1, to remove the
> crippling code from the HP3000s, the most popular item with the
> biggest impact on many HP3000 users gets the "no plans" response.
> Why?  Surely it cannot be that hard to implement and it will make no
> difference to HP Sales after HP ceases selling HP3000s? I have to
> question the validity of the SIB if HP isn't going to take action on
> the most required/wished for items. Action on only one item out of the
> top 6 is not good enough in my opinion. Yes, I know, people will say
> that HP could have decided  o do nothing more for the HP3000 Community
> after their announcement of the death of the HP3000 but they have
> stated that they would like to help the community and the indications
> of this SIB response don't seem too focussed on the wishes of that
> community.
> </rant>
> This rant is no reflection on you Jeff, as I know you do the utmost
> for the HP3000 Community, I just get frustrated at the
> "powers-that-be" who make life more difficult for people in the HP3000
> Community.

Thanks, John, for your words to me. All I can really say is that
things are often more complicated than they appear. Your arguments
above have merit and our management team will (probably has) see
them.

regards,
 Jeff

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