As a candidate, I was looking for a good template to reply to.  I "like" using those greater than signs in plain text for my e-mail responses. 

Thanks Joe!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion 
> 
> Posted February 21st
> 
> ==================================

Happy-fun-ball preliminary statement snipped.

> 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?

My first response is "Whaaa?"  "Offering" a "prohibition" seems like a contradiction in terms.  It is like driving to a toll booth, and paying the attendant to keep you off the bridge.  If you know you can't get on, why drive there?  

Unlocking the HP3000 systems is another subject entirely.  Once you acquire a vehicle you should be able to make mods to the hardware, same goes for computers.  Using the same metaphor, some mods may be only allowed in racing venues and may not be street legal.

> 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?

As a organization with nine people on its board with with little or no funds, I don't believe it is in our power to tell HP a that they "must" make a decision and have them listen to us.  It is apparent HP cares not one wit whether OpenMPE declares any decision "acceptable" or not, and making such declarations isn't going to gain any friends at HP.  We're more like a Public TV station that needs a telethon every once in a while to keep us going.  But there's only one donor with the currency (MPE) to make it worthwhile, and that is HP.  If we want HP to make that donation, we need to convince HP (our viewership) the donation is worth their while.  Otherwise MPE stays permanently on Pay Per View.

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

Given the current status of OpenMPE and HP relations, I believe the one accomplishment that OpenMPE needs to put under its belt, is to get HP to work with us, and not be at odds with each other.  Everything else hinges on this.  Although it is a cliché to say "Failure is not an option.", a failure in 2008 is not a death knell, to parapharse Scarlet O'Hara, "2009 *is* another year!"

> 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?

HP would have to change its modus operandi to lease those tools.  Since such decisions aren't usually made on a whim, I think the onus would be on the 3rd parties to negotiate such any contract.  In the worst case of a post-mortem software company, copies of such tools should be put in an escrow vault that can be purchased by one or more bidders.  OpenMPE should encourage such a such decision without being demanding.   (Answer to question #3 is germane.)

> 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 3000 community?
 
That would be a perfectly *fine* goal.  (Answer to question #3 is germane.)

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