OPENMPE Archives

March 2004

OPENMPE@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Suraci <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Steve Suraci <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:22:04 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
Based on the past couple responses, I think some of you might not have
understood my position.  To clarify, I think that there are two separate
issues that I addressed, the roles of the Board of Directors of OpenMPE and
that of the MPE community and how each must go about the business of
dealing with HP.

My position is simple: the Board of Directors can not take the role of
adversary in the negotiations with HP.  The Board needs to keep an open
line of communication with HP if they are going to attain their
objectives.  If the community is upset by HP and their dealings with the
Board then by all means they need to make waves.  Like many of the members
of this organization, I believe the objectives of OpenMPE should have been
addressed by HP long ago.

It is very obvious to me that HP is teetering with a PR disaster and is
well aware of it.  I would encourage the community to put as much pressure
on HP as possible.  Speaking to the press and organizing HP product
boycotts are great ways to keep our issues in the forefront and the
pressure on HP to move on our objectives.  This type of activity will only
serve to increase the negotiating position of the Board.

I will state again that we know what drives HP decision making.  The voice
of the community must be heard for them to fully appreciate the long term
impact to their P&L that alienating the MPE community could have.  How many
of you have HP 9000’s or Storage products in your shops?  How about PC,
laptops, and printers?  I would even ask: How many HP 9000 customers are
getting a warm and fuzzy for how the end of life for their products might
be addressed by HP?

My position is that the Board has been tasked with negotiating our
objectives to HP.  It is very counter-productive for them to now have to
take a step back in that process to deal with the non-disclosure issue.
Ken's stament and the Computerworld article are not on the same topic.  Ken
was a board member and the Computerworld artice was from the community.
The board has its job and so does the community.  Just don’t confuse the
two!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2