Chuck wrote:
> What is bothering me is that OpenMPE, at least according to
> its web page, is an non-profit open community created to provide
> for the care and upkeep of MPE at the direction of its membership.

That is correct.

> How can the membership provide direction when the board
> conducts all of its business behind closed doors,

This is the first board I have participated in, so I don't
know how representative it is, but I believe there are
closed sessions with many boards where the public is not
allowed to know what was discussed.  The OpenMPE board
has public minutes, but I agree with Chuck that, reading
only the public minutes it is not unreasonable to feel
that you, the OpenMPE community, are being left out of
some important discussions, decisions, dialogs, trade-offs,
etc.

A reason the board meetings are closed is that HP/CSY wants
to discuss proposals, ideas, etc. with a group that represents
the homesteaders community, but has the understanding that what
HP mentions may never end up happening.  I guess HP sees too
much exposure having these types of conversations with the
general public because public expectations will be raised
and if HP is unable to deliver then negative outcomes are
more likely.

> signs back room agreements with the vendor to
> withhold information from its members

I am not sure if any official non-disclosure agreements have
been signed by the Board (Jon can correct me here), but, it is
true that some info is not disclosed, or is disclosed but watered
down, or is disclosed later than the Board knew about it. The
reason for this would be a request from HP or from one of the
other vendors that the OpenMPE board deals with.

> and then misleads the membership to think a question they are
> asked comes from a board member when it is in fact market
> research for HP?

The OpenMPE members have opinions on how they want to use their
3000s, an emulator, H/W and S/W support, etc. When the OpenMPE
board solicits opinions from the members that info is made
public, not just solely for HP or another vendor.

> What did I miss?

I think you have missed a few things:

1. OpenMPE, its board, members, participating vendors, etc. all
want to achieve basically the same result: that MPE can continue
to be used in a commercial environment past HP's end-of-support.
Additionally, many OpenMPE members not only want MPE to survive
past 2006, they want to see it improve and continue to evolve.
But before that can happen it needs to survive. So, I think you
are throwing knives right at the very people who are on your side.

2. OpenMPE does not have control of MPE -- HP still does. So,
OpenMPE is not free to do whatever the Board or members wish.
The chosen path is to work WITH, rather than against HP, Interex,
and other vendors, to come up with proposals that will be favorable
to its members and at the same time at least not piss off the
others involved. This path may take longer but, so far, seems
the most promising.

3. You are always free to express your opinions any way you
see fit, but the tone of your messages may stifle others
who would like to participate.

regards,
 Jeff