I would think that it would be a good idea for HP and OPENMPE to get
multiple evaluations of 'the process documentation for completeness' and
'determinations if it (the process) will be sufficient to allow for a
successful transition', particularly if some are on the Pro Bono program .

The very fact that you have already implied that the selection is a done
deal is now one really good historical rational. A future rational of
multiple evaluators, would be then HP could clearly display an 'arms length'
transaction. After all, this is the main value of OPENMPE to HP, to act as a
firewall for future liability after 12/31/2006. This value would certainly
be degraded if this evaluation was shown to be 'cooked' so that the
resulting cake was merely a balloon covered with frosting.

From the OPENMPE side, I would certainly think that they would not want any
'single threaded' potentially vastly over optimistic evaluation that could
leave them holding that cake when the balloon pops.

Mike

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Gavin Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: An Update From HP
>
>
> Mike writes:
> >Beechglen would like to formally volunteer [...] and donate our technical
> >resources [...]
>
> Steve writes:
> > I would also offer Pivital Solutions resources to the mix.  Like
> > Beechglen, we would be willing to provide our service at no cost.
>
> I'm pretty sure that in this case HP will feel better paying an individual
> contractor to do this investigation for them (with a formal contract and
> all) rather than taking advantage of everyone falling all over themselves
to
> offer "free" services just because they want to get their foot in the door
> of MPE source code access :-)
>
> And I don't know how appropriate it would be for an OpenMPE board member
to
> be competing for contracts with HP.
>
> Anyway, I think HP already has a pretty good idea of who they're going to
> hire to do this (no, it's not me).
>
> G.