For those that have yet to cast their vote for the OpenMPE board election, 
and for inquiring minds as well, my answers follow.  Thanks to Ron Seybold for 
the questions, and thanks to Candidate Donna for being the first to jump.  
Also, I would like to suggest that these questions are a good starting point for 
the new OpenMPE board, and I would like to see each of the incumbents 
answer these as well, following the board election.

1. HP has expanded its "permissible upgrade" language in its RTU licenses. 
Does the vendor need to offer anything to the community to prohibit the 
movement of MPE/iX from system to system? Something perhaps like unlocking 
the horsepower of the 3000s in the A and N Class?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer:  "Prohibit the movement" and "unlocking 
the horsepower"seem to be separate topics, so I will address unlocking the 
horsepower.

On first blush this seems like a great idea – making it easier for the remaining 
users to increase server performance.  And I am all for it.  However, first we 
might ask why would HP do this at this time to a product line that has less 
than 24 months of HP support?  If delivered by HP proper this type of change 
would not only add new breath to the e3000, it would add new life to a 
platform that is being shut down.  So because of the unlikelihood of this 
happening I do not think it is a direction that OpenMPE should concentrate 
resources on at this time.

2. How soon must HP make a decision about its source code licensing for the 
3000's operating environment? Is it acceptable for the vendor to wait until the 
start of 2010, as it plans to do now?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer:  It occurs to me that this "decision" 
belongs to HP and that it is not the purview of others to presume to tell HP 
what they must do, let alone how soon.  Having said this, is it possible that 
HP could well have already made this decision? And that the decision is the 
source code will not be released?  I believe that the OpenMPE board needs to 
take this real possibility under consideration and re-evaluate its goals and 
purposes to best serve the community should the source code not become 
available.

3. What is the one achievement for OpenMPE which the group must 
accomplish during 2008 - the mission which the group must not fail at?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth’s answer:  To properly serve the community I 
believe OpenMPE needs more than one singular achievement goal, and this 
needs to be more than wishing and hoping to acquire and maintain the MPE 
source code.  It would seem that supporting a 30+ year old operating system 
with a shrinking market would be financially very challenging; especially for an 
organization that publicly states it has no money, no income, and no source of 
revenue other than limited contributions.  Addressing questions four and five 
below might be a good place to begin discussing and outlining 2008 target 
achievements.

4. Should third party support providers have access to HP's diagnostics, 
especially stable storage tools, in case of a system board failure, or the 
closing of a software company which cannot update licenses (with HPSUSAN 
numbers) any longer?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth’s answer: Third party companies already have 
offerings and new offerings are being openly discussed.  OpenMPE needs to be 
evaluating what can be offered should HP not provide additional access.

5. Should OpenMPE go after the mission of testing the dozens of beta test 
patches still stuck inside HP's 3000 labs? What can the group do to convince 
HP that the expertise is in place to do that testing, and release the HP 
improvements and engineering to the full 3000community?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth’s answer:  This raises many questions about the 
needs of the users, and the OpenMPE organization as well.  For example, is 
there any hard data that strongly indicates that a large number of remaining 
users, or even a small number, need these patches?  I believe the OpenMPE 
board needs to raise, explore and answer such questions thoroughly.

Addressing the question of testing, although the OpenMPE board members and 
members at large command considerable expertise, it does not seem apparent 
that OpenMPE as a whole has the ability, let alone the infrastructure, to 
conduct such testing.

I believe addressing these multiple subjects are important and urgent tasks for 
OpenMPE and its directors.

Thank you for your vote!  I welcome questions and dialog.
Keith Wadsworth
Orbit Software
[log in to unmask]  1.800.896.7248, or +1.510.686.7913, ext. 4300.

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