Here are my responses to my own challenge.

>
> 1. Retiring Board member Ken Sletten's minority report of 12/21/03:
>
> (http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0312&L=openmpe&F=&S>=&P=2455 )
> and the Board's action censoring him for going public.
>

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ken Sletten and all that he has
done for the HP 3000 community. Few people have given more of themselves.

Ken has been very consistent since 11/14/2001 in pushing HP to make
decisions - that time is critical and is rapidly running out. If Ken
believed he needed to go public in December, despite the Board's wishes,
than I automatically accept his decision. He has earned that respect from
everyone in the HP 3000 community.

On December 6 I posted the following: "As I sit here at my computer
contemplating the future, flitting around the Internet searching for news of
what is going on in the various corners of the HP 3000 universe, I alight
upon the OpenMPE web site. Here I discover that it has not been updated
since September and that the last meeting notes are from July. So, I ask,
what is going on, other than the latest secret focus group?"

Ken's report confirmed that very little was happening. HP sent the Board a
letter on 10/31/2003 saying it needed 3 more months before it could even
"provide a communication timeline" on when it would make various decisions.
Huh? Virtually all the issues we talk about today were already in
circulation scant months after 11/14/2001. What is even worse than HP's
insulting letter, is the OpenMPE Board's lack of any response to this slap
in the face.

I was willing to concede that certain things could not be discussed openly
or announced until after end of sales. But I expected HP to be ready to move
on November 1, 2003. Clearly it had no intention of doing anything but stall
some more.

I give Ken credit for waiting nearly two months after HP's 10/31 letter
before exploding. I doubt I would have had that much patience.

I find the Board's efforts to gag Ken and then later to censure him to be
wholly unwarranted. Reading the minutes of the Board meeting at which Ken
was censured, I note that there was barely a quorum of five members present,
including Ken. Assuming Ken did not vote to censure himself, then at most 4
votes of a 9 member board were for censure, something I find morally and
ethically repugnant, if not legally suspect. It should never have come to
this. The entire Board should have signed Ken's report and should have
distributed it widely. Had I been on the Board, this is what I would have
strongly encouraged.

> 2. HP's failure to meet its own privately communicated plan
> to "provide a communication timeline to the OpenMPE Board by
> January 31, 2004" as indicated in the Mike Paivenen letter to
> the OpenMPE Board dated 10/31/03.

HP gave itself a generous deadline and then failed to meet it. The Board
minutes from the only apparent meeting in February barely mention this
"roadmap" at all and then it is about trying to get a conference call with
HP sometime in early March. Instead of shaping a public response to HP's
continued foot dragging, the Board was mostly concerned with constructing an
elaborate cone of silence to further restrict the flow of information to the
OpenMPE membership and the HP 3000 community.

>
> 3. HP's failure to make good on one of its few public
> promises related to OpenMPE, made in this forum on 2/10/04 to
> "provide an update to the entire e3000 community, which
> should happen by the end of the month".

Why has HP not even apologized?

I pointed out in this forum (March 15) the most recent failure of HP to live
up to a promise. No one from the current OpenMPE Board has commented.
However, Patrick Thibodeau of Computerworld read the posting and called me.
This led to the article mentioned in point 4 below. Before his deadline, I
had a lengthy conversation with Patrick, providing him background
information on the OpenMPE/HP relationship. He told me that he repeatedly
tried to get a comment for the article from either Birket Foster (Chairman
of OpenMPE) or John Wolff (Vice-Chairman and candidate to retain his seat),
but neither returned telephone calls or emails.

>
> 4. HP's comments (Dave Wilde) as reported in the "Users Lobby
> for MPE Support" article appearing in the March 22 issue of
> Computerworld:
> http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,9
> 1451,00.html
>

Where to begin?

> 5. Your position on the past relationship between OpenMPE and
> HP and, if you think it can be improved, how you see the
> relationship going forward.
>

The past and current relationship between HP and OpenMPE has OpenMPE playing
the role of the little beggar child going around to the back door, hat in
hand, hoping for some leftovers from the master's (HP's) table. This will
never work. The Board's policy appears to be to at all costs avoid annoying
HP by pressing for anything or by holding HP to its commitments. The Board
is apparently fearful HP will pick up its toys and go home. But what has
this policy achieved? Very little. It is a failed policy that has led mostly
to continued antagonism between HP and the HP 3000 community.

You cannot have a partnership if only one side is interested in making it
work. HP has shown no evidence so far of a desire for a partnership. But
OpenMPE is equally at fault for not pressing the issue and for playing the
role of a beggar child instead of the role of a potential partner looking
for a mature partnership.

Going forward, we have to realize we are not without leverage. We have to
fashion a carrot and stick policy, offering HP something it wants, but all
the while holding the stick, ready and willing to use it, should HP renege
on its commitments or fail to work with us in good faith.

I have no doubt that some people see me as a giant pain in the ass, a loose
canon, a bull in a china shop. That's OK. I passionately want MPE to live on
in some form and am willing to do everything I can to make it happen. But if
MPE-IMAGE dies, if the OpenMPE movement dies, I want to make sure it goes
out swinging and not with a whimper.

> 6. The key issues facing OpenMPE in the next 12 months.
>

I do not claim to have all the answers, or even any answers, but I believe
the following are the key issues facing OpenMPE, issues that must be dealt
with in the next twelve months.

The number one issue is funding. OpenMPE has to develop and implement a
workable funding model. An obvious benefit is that money confers immediate
respect.

The close number two issue is developing a professional partnership with HP.
This may be impossible if HP has no intention of partnering with OpenMPE. If
this is the case, we need to determine it now, not two years from now.

The third key issue is communication. OpenMPE has to keep the HP 3000
community energized if we are to have success.