Chuck,

In your last post you brought up some good points that deserve answers.  I
will do my best to answer them for the benefit of everyone who might have
had similar questions.

>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.

Basically, I am in agreement with your perception of "secrecy" in terms of
the operation of the BOD.  My own perception of OpenMPE, prior to joining
the BOD last year, was that something was not working and too little
information was reaching our all important members  --  all of whom have a
common interest in MPE's salvation.  The website was stale.  However, as I
have learned since joining the board, the truth is really much simpler than
an intentional desire to maintain secrecy.  It is my observation that the
all volunteer board was not able to find the time and did not fully
understand/appreciate the critical importance of finding a way to
communicate with our membership on a regular basis, other than through the
posting of minutes, albeit in an untimely manner.

The website upkeep is a lot of work and Ron Horner, as webmaster, is to be
congratulated on the time and effort he has put in on behalf of the OpenMPE
website.  The material that finds its way onto the website is generally
agreed to by the board and is discussed beforehand.  Unfortunately, it does
not always get addressed in our meeting agendas due to other issues that
need to be dealt with and the time alotted for the meetings.  This is
regrettable and through responses like this, it is my hope that we can
raise the curtain a little to keep members informed, within the limits of
what is appropriate.  As I said earlier, we are now focusing more keenly on
the website and hopefully you will see more frequent and timely
communications on it.  A last date of update has been added to the home
page so that it is easy to tell if anything is new.  Also, the home page is
being used to headline new material and will direct people to fresh
material on other pages.

>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.

I agree.  Although, the issue of non-profit tax status with the IRS is a
largely technical and financial issue and really has nothing to do with the
intentions of OpenMPE to try and make a profit or not.  As Birket has
already explained, "it requires working with the IRS to explain why a group
clearly associated with a [for profit] vendor is a non-profit ... so there
would be fees to lawyers and accountants when OpenMPE has no regular
funding source [at this time]".  It was a simple decision to realize that
we should not spend what little funds we currently have on this issue at
this time.  Essentially the subject was shelved for attention at a later
date when our situation is more clear and the funding problem can be
addressed.  Again, the delayed posting of the BOD minutes is regrettable
and we will strive to do much better in the future.

>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.

We are trying to address the communication problem, we have control over
that.  You also apparently see our more fundamental problem, we need to see
some movement from HP before we can ask our members to significantly fund
OpenMPE.  We remain hopeful that this will take place sooner rather than
later  --  stay tuned.

Currently our focus is on the vLab, and not the funding of an emulator
development.  We recognize that OpenMPE must choose our projects carefully
and strategically.  The vLab seems to make the most sense with the biggest
payback in terms of longer term results.  Others seem to be addressing the
emulator project to one degree or another and we cheer them on
enthusiasticly.

Again, there is no intention of asking members for funding and then trying
to sell products that result back to them in order to make a profit.
OpenMPE must be able to sustain itself and its projects, but that primarily
means covering any associated costs.  I would direct you to our Articles of
Incorporation (which is posted on the OpenMPE website), Article 3,
paragraph 1 which states the purpose of the corporation: "To own [license]
the MPE environment and related software for the benefit of its members;
and to provide technological services for its members on a mutual nonprofit
basis."  Paragraph 3 states this intent even more clearly.

>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?

Actually, quite a bit.  If you think about it, this is still a revenue
stream for HP from MPE, and will probably continue to be such through
2006.  Therefore, I am sure it is a consideration in their thinking and
planning process.

I hope this has addressed your very understandable questions and concerns.
We do remain hopeful and positive and will do whatever we can to keep you
informed.

Best regards,

John Wolff
Vice Chair of OpenMPE