I second the motion. HP greatly needs to DEMONSTRATE they are
negotiating in good faith, not just claim so out of one side of the
corporate mouth while stating in trade press interviews they (HP) see
no need to make a decision this year out of the other side of the
corporate mouth (or is it more like a forked tounge?).

When I spoke with Winston Prather just days after the 11-14-01
announcement regarding several options for MPE after HP, including what
has become the OpenMPE model and a regular commercial business model,
every question out of Mr. Prather's mouth was tinged with a "kill MPE"
attitude instead of a "come, let us reason together, and see what best
can be done for our customers" attitude. Quite frankly, Mr. Prather was
intent that nothing work. No scenario whatever was deemed workable in
any way by Mr. Prather. He has since the merger gone on to manage the
high end server side of HP, leaving Dave Wilde in his stead. If the
corporate mind set was passed on as well, as may be demonstrated by Mr.
Wilde's comments in the article discussed in this forum recently, then
the OpenMPE board by agreeing to an NDA without requiring demonstrable
progress by HP may very well have sealed MPE's fate in line with Mr.
Prather's original intent. In other words, divide and conquer. Once HP
narrowed down all contenders to one, OpenMPE, they made their job very,
very easy. It's far easier to kill something with one cowering group
begging for table scraps than it is a commercial entity negotating to
buy a division with discussions directly with the HP Board.

My belated thanks to Ken, and a complete understanding of his
frustrations.

Matt Perdue

P.S. My group was not the only commercial entity seeking to
free "Cinderella" from HP.

Joseph Dolliver wrote:

> I Agree NO NDA until we see ACTION from HP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Sletten Kenneth W KPWA
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 7:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OpenMPE Board Election
>
> John Burke reported on OpenMPE BOD meeting that just took place:
> =========================================================
>
> It turns out the previous Board, despite my pleading, agreed
> to an NDA and in fact some members have already signed it. I
> have not seen the NDA yet, but am operating currently on a
> blanket verbal NDA covering anything I learn until such time
> as I either sign the existing NDA or the Board takes action
> to revise the current NDA.  My position on NDAs is well known.
> =============================================================
>
> Let the record show (as it partially does in minutes of prior
> BOD meeting) that this (now) ex-member of the BOD did NOT
> agree to a formal NDA, did NOT sign same, and voted AGAINST
> the recent bylaw changes associated with this area.
>
> As per my prior post, I urge all current members of the BOD
> who have not yet signed the NDA to refuse to do so until HP
> demonstrates good faith by delivering some substantive action
> on OpenMPE issues, and reverses Dave Wilde's "not this year"
> position stated in the recent ComputerWorld piece.  There is
> IMO nothing that legitimately needs to be discussed under a
> formal NDA before that can and should happen.  What HP needs
> to do is not a secret....
>
> Ken Sletten