With permission, Jon forwarded suggestion by Paul Edwards:

> ... I propose that HP should make the CE Handbooks
> available on the HP docs web site for the various
> systems and peripherials so that MPE customers could
> do self-maintenance after support ends.  Since the 9x7
> support has ended, can this documentation be made
> available now? Also, for any other unsupported products.

Very good idea...  Which leads in to a broader subject:

At the OpenMPE session at HPW Mike Paivinen was up front
laying out details and answering questions about the
OpenMPE "gang of 6" & etc. for most of the session. With
that and other business we ended up not getting time to
explore suggestions for formal changes and / or additions
to the current wording of the OpenMPE "gang of 6" at that
session;  although John Burke published his "manifesto"
in the Sept issue of the NewsWire that was available at
HPW.

(Current "official" wording of OpenMPE gang of 6 still
at:  http://www.openmpe.org/OpenMPEShortSurvey.htm )

Speaking just as another user and not officially for the
OpenMPE BOD at this point, after listening to everything
that was presented at HPW and comments by users on same,
at least for now IMO items 1, 4, and 6 probably do not
need to be amended.  Note "Burke's manifesto" is in
agreement on those three items. WRT item # 5, John urged
putting MPE documentation in the public domain, compared
to above "enable availability"; potentially a significant
difference.


WRT John's wording for above items 2 and 3, he said:

2.  "Enable MPE license transfers / upgrades and hardware
re-configuration (add / upgrade processors, etc.) on PA-
RISC hardware to continue after end of HP sales and
support; for changing user license levels, acquiring used
e3000 systems, etc."

3.  "Allow 3rd-party creation and beta testing of an MPE
emulator to start in 2002, and commit to allowing users
to buy and run a 3rd-party emulator without having to
give up existing MPE licenses on PA-RISC hardware. No HP
emulator restrictions after 2006."


Just on 2 and 3 above, at HPW there were a couple key
things that came out:

(2.)  As Paul already mentioned, Ken Nutsford reminded us
from the floor that 9X7 users are ALREADY past end of
sales and support;  and if they (9X7 users) are going to
continue to run those machines, they need # 2 now...  At
the time of Ken's comments on 9X7s, Birket said maybe it
was time to look for a replacement box that is still
supported..  I won't get directly in to this issue since
it doesn't apply to our site, but admit I wasn't thinking
of it at the time the original "gang of 6" was being put
together.

(3.)  HP addressed the current "official" OpenMPE wording
of the emulator item with a positive answer at HPW. Their
HPW answer was also "YES" on the critical "more licenses"
part of the "Burke's manifesto" version of # 3. I'm still
optomistic that the licensing cost and distribution
details to "Allow 3rd-party to start in 2002" will also
be addressed "very soon".


What I'm driving at is that at and after HPW there have
already been important suggestions and clarifications on
the "as-published" gang of 6 objectives.  Paul's "make
CE handbooks available on docs.hp.com is a great sub-head
under # 5 "Enable availability of documentation".


SUMMARY:  The devil really is in the details on much of
this.  We don't want to miss anything; so if any of y'all
have more detail suggestions like the one Paul just made,
please do not keep them to yourself.  Even if there is no
critical immediate need to implement some of them, IMO we
should try and make "the list" as complete, correct, and
specific as possible ASAP.


In an effort to start the ball rolling on said details:
In light of above it now seems to me that the wording for
OpenMPE # 5 should be modified.  Right now it sez:

"Enable availability of all public documentation after
2006."

I will propose to the OpenMPE BOD to change this to read:

"Enable availability of all public documentation no later
than the end of 2006."

...  for many things in the MPE documentation realm, the
difference between "after 2006" and "no later than the
end of 2006" could be significant.  If we're careless and
don't really ask for what we need, we may get exactly
what we ask for;  i.e.:  In this case not before 2007...

O.K...:  There has to be a bunch more suggestions out
there; for additions / modifications / sub-headings to
the existing official "gang of 6".  Have at it...

Ken Sletten