> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On 
> Behalf Of John R. Wolff
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:10 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Free MPE
> 
> 
> >I have asked the question 2 times already and received no 
> response, but 
> >I will ask it a 3rd time now:
> 
> >What exactly does anyone think OpenMPE has accomplished to date?
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> I would like to try and answer your question  --  I can 
> certainly understand the frustration of watching this process 
>  --  it is much like watching paint dry.  Please keep in mind 
> that OpenMPE is the party seeking a license from HP on behalf 
> of its member community, thus they control the time table, 
> and to a large degree the agenda as well.
> 

I understand that OpenMPE is at the mercy of HP right now. That is why
my question was about what has been accomplished, as opposed to what has
the board attempted, and was not meant as an direct attack on the board.

> It is my belief that OpenMPE has needed to try harder to 
> communicate issues to the community while still respecting 
> our agreements with HP.  To this end you will notice recent 
> updates on our website.  The following response is intended 
> to further help with the communication process:
> 

This has been the primary weakness of OpenMPE and resulted in an almost
complete collapse of the momentum the community had 2 years ago.

The OpenMPE board has consistantly operated behind closed doors with
little or no attempt made to keep the community informed. While HP has
dictated much secrecy through their NDA's, presumably in the hope that
their foot dragging would not be as aparent, there has also been a
marked reluctance on the part of the board to openly communicate with
the membership. 

The decision to no longer pursue non-profit status is one example that
should have been posted to the home page of the web site and on the
list. Instead it was buried in a board minutes post that took 4 months
to reach the web site.

> 1) OpenMPE has set up a structure (which is a legal entity) 
> that exists for the purpose of negotiating with HP.  The 
> OpenMPE Board of Directors is the organ which speaks for the 
> MPE member community and communicates with HP on behalf of 
> the members.  All members of the BOD are volunteers that have 
> agreed to donate their time, at no pay, towards the 
> organizations goals. My fellow BOD members and I spend 1 or 2 
> hours per week communicating with one another and performing 
> tasks necessary to keep the organization functional while we 
> work with HP.
> 
> 2) Our main goal (as stated in our recent AIP) is "to obtain 
> a non- exclusive license to all source code for MPE/iX and 
> related MPE products, tools, software build/test suites and 
> internal documentation.  This license will allow OpenMPE to 
> produce, control, manage and distribute bug fixes and 
> enhancements to these products, and thereby facilitate future 
> support of MPE for sites that continue to run it beyond 2006".
> 
> 3) HP stated in their recent letter to OpenMPE that on or 
> about January 31, 2004 they would provide a time table for 
> events we could expect from them. We are waiting for this 
> information to be revealed so that we can then assess what 
> the next steps must be to proceed.
> 
> 4) The dilema facing OpenMPE is a simple "chicken & egg" 
> problem:  OpenMPE needs to initiate the collection of funds 
> in order to develop the business plans and infrastructure 
> necessary to accomplish the goals stated in item 2 above.  
> However, we are reluctant to start soliciting for such funds 
> until we know exactly where we can go with HP (the jury is 
> still out!).  You will note that all members of OpenMPE are 
> such with no cost of membership currently required.  If we 
> got some form of reasonable go ahead from HP this would 
> obviously have to change.  I would say that we have done 
> pretty well on a shoe string so far, but there is a long ways to go.
> 

Without some change in how the OpenMPE board communicates and a pretty
dramatic turnaround by HP, I would be very surprised if you get many
willing to pay for membership let alone fund emulator development and a
software lab. Particularly with OpenMPE operating as a for-profit entity
that would likely turn around and sell the items they funded back to the
membership.

In any event, I suspect it may already be far too late to reverse the
damage that has been done.

> 5) OpenMPE has provided a focus for HP for the homesteading 
> issue.  It has helped them judge the scope of the community 
> and some of the concerns that must be considered.  We have 
> made surveys of opinion of our community, some of which have 
> been done at HP's request.
> 

Yes, HP is well known for its strategy of conducting survey's to buy
time.

> 6) MPE is HP's intellectual property, it belongs to them and 
> it is up to them to license it as they think appropriate to 
> best serve their interests.  We who would seek a license from 
> them as outlined in item 2 above must negotiate it with them  
> --  we can not hold a gun to their head or steal it  --  this 
> is a business process, although it is taking longer than 
> anyone would like.  It must also be kept in mind that there 
> are several players in the decisions that must be made at HP 
> including: vCSY, HP Legal and the Support Organization, to 
> name but a few.  An organization the size of HP takes time to 
> pull all of this together (and it is slow).
> 

vCSY - No comment

HP Legal - tell them to go sue themselves

The Support Organization - They had nothing to do with the 3000 when it
was being sold, what do they have to do with it now?

> It is my hope that this response to your question has painted 
> a clearer picture of what OpenMPE has done and the issues 
> that are involved.  In the end we all want the same thing  -- 
>  life for MPE beyond 2006!
> 

There are many forms that life beyond 2006 could take. Some that may be
acceptable to Vendors and consultants but may not be so acceptable to
end users. A perfect example of this is that abortion of a license that
was passed around last year.

> John Wolff
> Vice Chair of OpenMPE
> 

Thank you for your reply.


Comments are my own, not my employer's... Etc.