Thanks, Birket.

I think we can safely assume that OpenMPE's Board's vows are more reliable
than those of HP.  Good luck!

Tracy I want my MPE Pierce

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birket Foster [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Update from OpenMPE Board
>
>
> Re: Halftime at the OPENMPE BowlTo The OpenMPE community,
>
>
>
> The execution of a confidentiality agreement between the
> Board of Directors of OpenMPE and Hewlett-Packard was an
> issue in the recent OpenMPE elections. We would like to
> inform the membership of the outcome of recent discussions
> between Hewlett-Packard and the OpenMPE Board of Directors as
> well as the outcome of recent discussions among the OpenMPE
> Board; discussions that have all occurred since the new Board
> was seated.
>
>
>
> During the election, some members of OpenMPE expressed
> distrust of Hewlett-Packard's motives in its dealings with
> OpenMPE and also expressed dissatisfaction with the general
> lack of communication on the progress, or lack of progress,
> being made towards OpenMPE objectives. This is entirely
> understandable. The OpenMPE Board has not done a good job of
> communicating with its membership, in part because it did not
> know what could be said. Clearly, Hewlett-Packard does not
> share the same sense of urgency to make decisions as many
> OpenMPE members.
>
>
>
> It is standard business practice to engage in confidentiality
> agreements when serious negotiations are taking place. One
> could thus take as a positive HP's insistence on a
> confidentiality agreement; i.e. it wants to negotiate
> seriously with OpenMPE. Of more practical importance,
> however, is that a well-crafted Confidentiality Agreement can
> actually improve communications. It gives HP the confidence
> it can openly discuss strategic issues with the Board of
> OpenMPE and it provides a mechanism for the Board to
> communicate issues and results to its members.
>
>
>
> In negotiations with HP, we believe we have come up with a
> compromise that adequately addresses both HP's desire for
> confidentiality of discussion and the Board's desire for
> better communication with its members. A key change was the
> length of the protection period, the period during which
> discussions must be kept confidential unless it is mutually
> agreed that specific information can be released. The
> original CDA called for a protection period lasting until
> 12/31/2008. The revised protection period is end-of-support,
> 12/31/2006. While this is still longer than some of us
> believe is necessary, it represents a reasonable compromise.
> HP has also agreed to protect any designated OpenMPE
> confidential information.
>
>
>
> We have had discussions about the need to keep the membership
> informed. Agreeing to this CDA will not mean we are bringing
> down the cone of silence until 12/31/2006. We believe, and HP
> agrees, that we can craft regular messages that outline
> progress without violating either the letter or spirit of the
> confidentiality agreement. It is up to the membership to hold
> the Board responsible for this.
>
>
>
> Therefore, the Board of Directors of OpenMPE has decided to
> enter into a confidentiality agreement with HP in order to
> facilitate communication and negotiation. It has also vowed
> to improve communication with the OpenMPE membership.
>
>
>
> --- Board of Directors, OpenMPE
>