Speaking of SIG ? What Ken is asking for and the rest of us MPER's is when are we going to hear from the OPENMPE group on our mission to make MPE /IMAGE an open source via a license.

Not much activity reported from OpenMPE

-------------- Original message from Sletten Kenneth W KPWA : --------------

> Donna started yesterday on 3000-L:
> =========================================
>
> ....
> during sig mpe, we talked about the possibility of sig image merging in.
> imo, most of the people at the meeting were in favor of doing this. ....
>
> after the meeting, someone approached me about sig image and asked if it was
> a good idea to include eloquence. i thought it was quite an interesting
> suggestion.
>
> i strongly believe that image users still need a strong voice (via a
> sig) to express their concerns/needs to hp. i think the issue surrounding
> large file datasets and the upcoming sql standard are two obvious examples.
> i believe too that eloquence user will benefit from having a unified voice.
>
> so, what say ye?
>
> - should sig image merge with sig mpe?
> - should sig image include eloquence users and become sig image/eloquence?
> - any other suggestions?
> ========================================
>
> WRT Donna's ?, my votes:
>
> YES, SIGImage/SQL should merge with SIGMPE.
> YES, Eloquence should be included.
>
> FWIW, 2 or 3 years ago at SIGImage/SQL meeting users DID
> vote to include Eloquence. That by itself does not mean
> it still has to be, but for the record.
>
> WRT outstanding issues: Large file datasets (LFD) + SQL99:
> Definitely significant issues, and should get attention.
> BUT (and I perhaps did not make this as clear as I could
> have in my pre-HPW postings that resulted in cancellation
> of SIGImage/SQL meeting at HPW-2004):
>
> In my discussions with the HP Database Lab prior to HPW-2004,
> it was my clear understanding that there is no chance... read
> that as NO CHANCE... that HP will undertake any more work on
> Image that would be considered an enhancement; i.e.: As long
> as HP has Image, SQL99 is NOT going to be incorporated. Would
> be happy to have HP disagree, but not holding my breath. IMO
> only chance this will happen is if SIGMPE / OpenMPE can get HP
> to release its death grip on MPE and subsystems, and somebody
> else does it.
>
> WRT LFD: If somebody can demonstrate that there is an outright
> bug, then HP has an obligation to fix it. But AFAIK, it's not
> that it breaks, it's just slow and clunky. Remain open to
> correction.
>
>
> Then after other comments the Chairman of the Board stepped in:
> =========================================
>
> And I agree with the concept also.
>
> In order to effect an orderly transition, the heads of the two SIGs in
> question should contact Interex and find out what needs to happen in order
> to merge. It could be as simple as folding one SIG (sigimage) and then
> expanding the mission of the other SIG (sigmpe).
>
> Denys
> ===========================================
>
> Donna and John Burke:
>
> Given we have the support of the COB, as the active leaders
> of SIGMPE, will you take the lead on this ?? I am in full
> agreement with need to merge, and will support whatever you
> all come up with.
> ==========================================
>
> Then Lendy Sanford Cooke:
> ==========================================
>
> Donna,
> My vote is, no matter what, Eloquence should be added to
> Image's Sig. I also believe that Sig Image needs separate
> representation for one more year. If HP may see a SIG
> merger as a sign that our issues don't have the backing from
> the user community to keep the SIG running. .....
> ==========================================
>
> In another time and place in the life of MPE and Image,
> Lendy's above on keeping SIGImage/SQL going for another
> year would be the prudent thing to do. However, in the
> current situation I think keeping SIGImage/SQL separate
> will not provide any added value. Problem is not lack
> of backing from the users: It is lack of backing from
> the VENDOR.
>
>
> IMO core issue remains the same:
>
> Either HP will release / license MPE and its subsystems
> to one or more third parties soon (it is on the verge of
> being if not aleady too late), or it will not. If HP
> does not, the only question is the slope of the glide
> path on "fade to black". In saying that I realize that
> many users will continue to run MPE for years after HP
> exit; and that well-regarded companies like Allegro,
> Beechglen, etc. will continue to support it for years.
> But the cold, hard realities are what they are.
>
> Believe it was long-time usual suspect Duane Percox who
> shortly after Black Wednesday 11-14 prophetically said:
> "MPE is dead. Get over it."
>
> Kind of depends on what the meaning of the word "is is",
> I suppose, but with HP still refusing to say until last
> half of 2005 whether or not they will even CONSIDER
> licensing / releasing MPE, Duane's words are (sadly) IMO
> the operative and accurate description. Note there has
> been no substantive news from OpenMPE BOD either; clock
> continues to run, and nothing has happened that we know of.
>
>
> Now return myself to regularly scheduled day of real work.
>
> Ken Sletten
> Temporary / caretaker / outgoing SIGImage/SQL Chair,
> and (as much as possible) ex-HP-customer.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

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