Ron Horner writes,

>
> I think there is some things here that need explaining.  HP
> does not have to
> work with us, or anyone, on the subject of MPE.  They can
> just close it
> down.  The fact that they are willing to talk things over
> with OpenMPE is a
> positive step.  Just remember they don't have to do this.
>

Talk is cheap, but isn't even worth that if there is no intent behind the
talking.

> I understand that passions run high about MPE.  I've spent
> the past 15 years
> working on the platform.  I want to see MPE live a long life.
>  But chest
> thumping, stomping of feet, or holding of ones breath till
> one turns blue
> will not make HP move one inch.  We have to move carefully
> and work with HP.
> There, I said it.  Work with HP to get what we want.  We must
> all be strong
> and back those people who HP is willing to talk with about
> MPE.  That is
> where OpenMPE is.  HP is willing to talk to us about MPE.
>

Do not equate talk with us and work with us. I would love to be convinced HP
is interested in WORKING with us. Quotes such as those that appeared in
Computerworld lead a reasonable person to question whether HP is truly
interested in working with us. My point is we should not give anything away
until we have agreement that HP is willing to work with us, not just talk.

> As a sign of good faith, OpenMPE is willing to sign an NDA
> agreement.  We
> need that agreement to be able to have the discussions about
> MPE.

Fine, but what is HP's sign of good faith? I am not opposed to NDAs on
principle; but by signing an NDA, we are giving up something very important
and valuable. We need to receive value in return and there needs to be a
time limit on the NDA. Heck, we might want to write a book someday. ;-)

> Might I
> add that in the beginning, we did have a blanket NDA.
> Because of the emails
> that Ken sent revealing statements made under NDA, we have to
> go down the
> NDA road again.  It doesn't matter whether or not the dialog
> had nothing of
> substance.  The conversation was under NDA and should not have been
> revealed.  At that point, HP could have stopped talking to OpenMPE all
> together.  They did not.
>

I don't believe Ken should have directly copied the emails from HP since
there was the reasonable expectation (even absent an NDA) that they were
private. However, had he merely paraphrased the emails and not identified
the sender, then that is a different story in my opinion. When you give up
just about your only leverage via a "blanket NDA", what do you expect to
happen if the other party is unwilling to to act in good faith?

Consider also the possibility that the reason HP did not stop talking is
because it was not in its best interest to stop talking - even if the only
reason it is talking is to attempt to keep a lid on a vocal segment of the
MPE community so as to not prejudice its efforts to move people to HP-UX.

> This is not the time for demanding that HP turn over MPE.
> For MPE, HP is
> the only game in town.  They have the ball.  We have to work
> with them to
> let us play with that ball.  We as a community want the same
> thing.  Let us
> regain our focus and stand behind the OpenMPE Board.  Play an
> active roll in
> this discussion with HP.  I'm not defending HP and their
> actions.  But, HP
> is the one in control here.  We must never forget that.  This is about
> giving everyone involved what they want.  This is politics.
>

Sure we want HP to license MPE to some third party. Consider that HP might
want something from us too. Let's not just automatically cede all power to
HP.

John Burke