This post didn't work for Ken S, an OpenMPE BOD member.  Let's see if I, a
lowly member of  OpenMPE wannabe community, can post it for him...

I tried posting this to the OpenMPE list this morning; and
I *thought* my subscription from another email address had
been accepted.  But I have received several private email
messages that said it did not show up.  Either I was not
subscribed as I thought;  or it was held somewhere along
the way because in my haste I neglected to copy the title.

Whatever:  I give it another try.  Let's see if 3000-L
will like me (LISTSERVE@RAVEN sez I'm good).  Attached
find
verbatim the message I tried to post to the OpenMPE list a
few hours ago.

Ken Sletten
================================================


Sunday 21 December 2003

To all MPE users, especially Homesteaders:

First all please note this important DISCLAIMER:

        What follows is the personal position and opinion of the
writer, and does NOT reflect the official position of the
Board of Directors of OpenMPE Inc.;  i.e.:  This is a
minority report.  While I believe other members of the BOD
are significantly disappointed with continued
foot-dragging by HP on key issues affecting "life for MPE
after HP" (L4MAH), they will have to speak for themselves
if they choose to do so, on the extent of their
disappointment and on what follows.


        In any case, the patience of this member of the BOD has
been well and thoroughly exhausted:  2+ years and counting
after the "end-of-HP-sales" and "end-of-HP-support"
announcement on 11-14, appeals to HP by the BOD and other
MPE users for some kind of substantive action on MPE
licensing and other key issues remain unanswered.  Without
catalysts only HP can provide, progress on L4MAH is
effectively at all stop.  Nobody is going to invest
significant funds in a potential post-2006 future for MPE
as long as there is no concrete indication let alone
guarantee that HP will allow and enable that future to
happen in the first place.  Given the failure to make
substantive progress, and due to the nature and
circumstances of other information that has come to our
attention, I feel I have an overriding obligation to the
entire OpenMPE community to bring everyone up to date on
the content of recent official communications between HP
vCSY and the BOD.

        Also note that while this document is written mostly from
the OpenMPE perspective since that's what I've been
working on, this is NOT meant to apply just to OpenMPE;
 i.e.:  If OpenMPE is not the organization that should
assume oversight responsibility for the care and feeding
of MPE after end of HP support in 2006, I've got no
problem with that:  It could also be one or more or a
consortium of established 3rd-party companies that have
the technical experience, sufficient staff, and business
track record to be custodian / prime contractor /
sub-contract manager for MPE after 2006;  and that have or
can get enough financial resources to sufficiently
maintain that position.  A list of potential candidates
for that task besides OpenMPE Inc is pretty short, and
should be fairly easy to generate.

        But whoever it is, if MPE is going to avoid being frozen
in time at the end of 2006, SOMEBODY needs to be granted
formal MPE source code access / patch release / licensing
authority;  and action by HP to make that happen needs to
move forward NOW or it will be too late.  HP should have
had at least an outline for much of this laid out BEFORE
they made their infamous 11-14 announcement;  i.e.:  They
are already a couple years behind the curve.  Remember
that the overall process of just managing and executing
any MPE build / release cycle is a complex task, let alone
implementing and testing even minor updates and bug fixes
to core MPE routines and subsystems.  The in-depth
collective knowledge required to reliably accomplish those
tasks cannot successfully be carried forward if HP waits
until just before they turn out the lights to set MPE
free.


        I hung on for what is now the 7 weeks after e3000
end-of-HP-sales on 31 October, to see if at long last HP
would FINALLY be ready and willing to take some concrete
positive action that would immediately be perceived as
such by all.  The fact that the answer is still no is one
of the key reasons that drove me to publish this document
as a minority report.

        HP will likely maintain they haven't said no, but rather
that they're still working on it;  i.e.:  "Later" (maybe).
 Crux of the problem is that time is of the essence, and
later doesn't cut it anymore.  After many months of trying
to work constructively with HP and persuade them to get
off the dime;  after 7 weeks of intensive discussions by
the BOD since end-of-HP-sales;  and after presentation to
HP of a proposed Agreement in Principle (AIP) authored by
the BOD that seems completely reasonable and appropriate
if HP truly wanted to be a "trusted partner":  The only
result to date is that HP continues to stall and run out
the clock (expect many are shocked;  SHOCKED;  to hear HP
would do such a thing).

        Before making further comments, let me cut-and-paste a
formal communication from HP to the BOD at the end of
October 2003.  This email was sent to Jon Backus on behalf
of HP by Mike Paivinen Friday evening 31 October, in
response to concerns expressed earlier by the BOD to HP.
 All members of the BOD got a copy on Sunday 2 November
2003.  Note this HP email is bounded by a line of
"++++++++" at the start, and by "########" at the end.
 Here is the verbatim text of that communication:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: PAIVINEN,MICHAEL (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 8:01 PM
To: 'Jon Backus'
Cc: WILDE,DAVE (HP-Cupertino,ex1); MCDONALD,ROSS
(HP-Cupertino,ex1);
VANCE,JEFF (HP-Cupertino,ex1); PAIVINEN,MICHAEL
(HP-Cupertino,ex1)
Subject: vCSY Response to the OpenMPE Board

Dear OpenMPE Board of Directors:

Thank you very much for taking the time last week to share
your concerns with us regarding the future of OpenMPE and
the need for a timely HP response to the critical needs of
the e3000 user community.

I have discussed your concerns with other members of the
vCSY leadership team (Ross, Jeff, Dave), specifically your
request for a publicly communicated timeline covering
decisions on long-term community access to hardware (e.g.
9000->3000 conversions), software (e.g. MPE/iX source
access), and the other remaining issues that address e3000
community needs after HP's end-of-support date. As Dave
Wilde said, we don't want to make decisions on a one-off
basis, and we want a chance to assess any changes in
community needs after 10/31/03. We also think it's
important that we have a general idea of what we are going
to be announcing - and have internal alignment around
those ideas -- before we establish a timeline for that
communication. We don't want to prematurely commit
ourselves to a path that limits our ability to meet the
varied, and sometimes conflicting, needs of our customers
and partners. As a result, we expect to be able to provide
a communication timeline to the OpenMPE Board by January
31, 2004.

We continue to believe that OpenMPE plays an important
role in advocating for the needs of the segment of the
customer community that may require the continued,
productive use of their e3000 beyond HP end-of-support.
Looking back, in the first year after our November 2001
announcement, OpenMPE played a critical role in both
advocating the needs of its user community and working
with us in formulating our response. We don't believe our
response to our customers at HP World 2002 would have been
as complete or responsive without OpenMPE's involvement in
the process.

We want to work with you to maintain the viability and
credibility of OpenMPE. We acknowledge that this timeline
will create a more challenging path towards that goal. So,
in my meeting with Jon next week, we can begin to discuss
the available options.

Finally, I want to reiterate our commitment to addressing
the needs of the OpenMPE community. Although we may not
agree on the timeline for doing so, we agree that there
are real issues that need to be addressed.

Sincerely,

Mike Paivinen
##########################################


        Do the above soothing but completely "commitment-free"
words give you a good warm fuzzy, that HP will finally and
expeditiously do what they should already have done long
ago to give MPE a shot at a viable post-2006 future before
the fat lady sings ??...
I think not.

        And be sure you catch the full meaning of the one above
item of any substance with a date attached to it:  "By
January 31, 2004" is still NOT when HP proposes to finally
tell Homesteaders what actions they will take and
commitments they will make to facilitate L4MAH:  That is
only when they "expect to be able to provide" a SCHEDULE
for when AT SOME SUBSEQUENT AND STILL UNKNOWN DATE IN THE
FUTURE, HP will tell MPE users what they might (or might
not) be willing to do.  2+ years and counting after 11-14,
this is in my opinion a fundamentally unacceptable
situation.


        Not only that:  Let the record show that when the BOD
told HP we wanted to make the above formal but essentially
"content free" communication to the BOD public, HP's
response was that they considered the above email to be
covered under the informal NDA between the BOD and vCSY,
and they did NOT agree that it could be made public.

        On balance I find HP's claim that NDA coverage of the
above message should prevail neither persuasive nor
compelling, for the following reasons:

(1)     Consider an approximate analogy:  In working with
another party you become aware that they are taking action
(or NON-action, in this case) that will have a very
detrimental effect on a business that you and many others
that depend on you have a big stake in.  When asked
directly about this the other party in effect confirms
that, yes:  They ARE doing what you think they are doing
(running out the clock).  BUT:  The other party says that
you are not allowed to tell your partners, because they
have decided their actions are covered by an NDA cloak.
 And they made that decision because.....  well
(apparently), just because...  My answer:  The obligation
of those in positions of responsibility not to conceal
material facts from their constituents and to warn the
victims that their vital interests are at risk easily
trump what was AT BEST a fuzzy, never-formally-defined,
unevenly specified and applied NDA.  It's mostly a
sidebar, but I note in passing that on several occasions
in the past two years HP singled out specific items for
NDA coverage before getting in to them during discussions
with the BOD;  they did NOT do so ahead of time for the
above email.

(2)     The above email presents a strategic message to all
MPE users about HP actions to facilitate L4MAH:  Other
than the limited and heavily qualified emulator statement
a long time ago, nothing of substance has happened, and as
far as HP is concerned it's going to stay that way for
what is still an indeterminate length of time.  The
OpenMPE community has a right to know that, and I see it
as my primary obligation to pass on that important
information.

(3)     As far as the detailed contents of the above HP
message, note that besides reflecting our concerns back at
us all it contains is:
      [a]       A bunch of mushy, feel-good "you're important"
                and "we agree that there are real issues" phrases.
      [b]       Mention of 2 things (9000 -> 3000 and source
access)
                that have been discussed at great length in public.
      [c]       Repetition of the "we don't want to make hasty
                decisions" litany HP has probably put out in one form
                or another at every public meeting since 11-14.
      [d]       "....we expect to be able to provide a
communication
                timeline to the OpenMPE Board by January 31, 2004."

THAT's IT !!...:  Except for the "communication timeline"
sentence, it's either hard-content-free or has been said
in various ways in public forums to the point of boring
repetition; i.e.:  TOTALLY devoid of even a hint of
corporate secrets or significant new information.  And yet
HP *still* did not want the public to see it;  and was not
willing to agree to so simple a request from the BOD that
had no discernable cost to them, except for having users
hear what their current plan is for when HP proposes to
provide a SCHEDULE for when they are going to tell us
something some time later on.  Given that unwillingness to
cooperate on something so trivial, how in the WORLD can
anyone have any confidence that HP will ever be willing to
take any SUBSTANTIVE steps to facilitate L4MAH, when those
decisions WILL have significant implications both inside
and outside HP and for a large number of MPE users;
 unless and until those actions are actually seen to
happen by all ??

(4)     If HP is willing to use release of something as
totally bland, mushy, and innocuous as the above email to
the BOD as an excuse for stiffing MPE Homesteaders, then I
believe it is a foregone conclusion that they're going to
look for and find any number of handy excuses to stiff us
in the end in any case.  Better to know for sure now
instead of later.


        After getting the above email from HP, the BOD went in to
an active drafting phase, where there was general
participation in what I think ended up being 9 or 10
revisions of a proposed Agreement in Principle (AIP)
between HP and OpenMPE Inc.  As per above this was written
from the OpenMPE perspective, but as far as I'm concerned
it would be O.K. to substitute the names of one or more
established 3rd-party MPE businesses, if for whatever
reason OpenMPE is not the organization to carry this
forward.  Note that several members of the BOD including
the writer were hampered during this period by being
unusually busy with "real work" and etc. (being on the BOD
as a volunteer is not paying anyone's light bill);  and it
was not until just after the US Thanksgiving Holiday that
the proposed AIP went to HP.  Here is that communication
from the BOD to HP:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Birket Foster [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]; WILDE,DAVE
(HP-Cupertino,ex1)
Subject: Open MPE

Mike,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Open-MPE group to
make some changes happen - in order for Open MPE to be
able to fund the vLAB, that we have been talking about for
many months now, we must be in a position to have enough
concrete information to allow a "homesteading company" to
be offered something of value downstream.

To that end it is important that, as soon as possible, we
have an agreement in principle around OPEN-MPE's role
going forward and a public statement from vCSY that will
allow OPEN-MPE to get out of the holding pattern we have
been in and start taking action to ensure that there is
continuity in our advocacy and a smooth transition of the
MPE Operating environment.

You said in a recent note to Jon Backus

"We continue to believe that OpenMPE plays an important
role in advocating for the needs of the segment of the
customer community that may require the continued,
productive use of their e3000 beyond HP end-of-support.
Looking back, in the first year after our November 2001
announcement, OpenMPE played a critical role in both
advocating the needs of its user community and working
with us in formulating our response. We don't believe our
response to our customers at HP World 2002 would have been
as complete or responsive without OpenMPE's involvement in
the process.

We want to work with you to maintain the viability and
credibility of OpenMPE. We acknowledge that this timeline
will create a more challenging path towards that goal. So,
in my meeting with Jon next week, we can begin to discuss
the available options.

Finally, I want to reiterate our commitment to addressing
the needs of the OpenMPE community. Although we may not
agree on the timeline for doing so, we agree that there
are real issues that need to be addressed."

If vCSY really thinks that Open MPE is the solution to a
category of these "real issues" then an agreement in
principle (AIP) or memorandum of understanding should be a
logical next step ... the timing may be different but the
principles should resonate. Here is a draft of the AIP
that the OPEN MPE BOD thinks will fill both our needs and
allow us to begin a series of steps to put OPEN MPE in a
position to be able to address the issues.

========== DRAFT AIP ===========================
On December XX, 2003 HP reached an agreement in principle
(AIP) with OpenMPE Incorporated, to grant OpenMPE 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. OpenMPE will in turn sub-license
these products to end users and partners, and collect and
distribute appropriate fees for doing so.

This MPE license will be granted to OpenMPE only if
certain conditions are met. As part of this AIP, HP
recognizes the need for an MPE Lab staffed independently
of HP, to allow continued viability of the MPE environment
after end-of-HP-support in 2006. HP recognizes that funds
and lead time will be needed to bring an effective MPE Lab
online. Planning and fund raising for this project will
begin immediately. It is expected that OpenMPE will be in
a position to begin independent distribution of
modifications to MPE after the end of 2006.
===============================================

As we both know there is some considerable "ramp" time
even for folks familiar with the MPE bedsheets and the
concepts around the build of MPE - OPEN MPE needs to fund
vLAB to be able begin the transition soon as December 31
2006 is coming and some overlap will be required as part
of a "turnover".

The wording of this AIP was carefully chosen to allow vCSY
and OPENMPE to be able to get the details fleshed out
later - we need the agreement to present to our membership
to be able to move forward.

Is it possible to get this wording approved by December
12th?
I look forward to your early reply,

On behalf of OPEN-MPE,

Birket Foster
Vice Chair
OPEN MPE
##########################################


        One week after the above was sent from the BOD to HP, we
got HP's answer:
The answer was No.

In the interest of precision, note that HP's "no" in this
case was in answer to the last above specific question:
 "Is it possible to get this wording approved by December
12th?"
Some might point out that this is not the same as saying
"never".  My response is (again):
If 2+ years after 11-14 HP's answer is still "not now",
that's not good enough.


        It appears that HP is willing to "work with us" ONLY if
what we want already fits in EXACTLY with what their
pre-determined internal plans, schedules, and timelines
already say.  In fact, looking back now on the entire
history since the 11-14 announcement, it's hard not to
feel like HP has been playing us for suckers.  I don't
doubt that the HP Support organization and above all HP
Legal are slow-as-molasses-in-January impediments, but at
this point for practical purposes I don't know that it
matters much anymore how "overt" or laze faire HP's track
record has been since 11-14;  except for being
disappointed that HP managers used their long-term working
relationship with MPE users to sell the idea that we could
depend on them to do "the right thing" before it was too
late.  What's left of vCSY may be a footnote within the
corporate behemoth, but I don't accept that as a valid
excuse for continued inaction and endless delay:  HP's
internal organizational problems and vCSY's lack of
control are THEIR problems:  We are dealing with HP as a
company, and HP is not delivering.

        MPE users were loyal HP customers for more than a quarter
century.  HP claims they are still putting the interests
of MPE users first.  But on balance HP's actions and
omissions both before and after the 11-14 announcement
continue to confirm that their statements along those
lines are still just PR spin and fluff without real
substance.  Remember that at HP World 2001 HP was still
saying they were going to deliver on Dr. Harry Sterling's
prior firm commitment to port MPE to IA-64.  When HP
pulled the rug out from under MPE only two months later
they left many high-end OLTP sites without a reasonable IT
path, and forced many sites to accelerate spending of what
will in some cases be millions of dollars on urgent
efforts to "migrate" applications to other platforms.
 Plus third-party developers had to make huge investments
to try and preserve what will likely end up being only a
fraction of their prior e3000 installed base.

        One could of course make the point that all in vCSY are
HP employees;  that the official "company line" is to
migrate MPE users to other HP platforms with all
deliberate speed;  and that we shouldn't expect HP
employees to do anything other than their best to expedite
and implement that company objective while helping to sell
migration services.  The "trusted partner" thing HP loves
to tout rings pretty hollow in that case;  especially
given recent surveys and information from various
3rd-parties that confirm a larger than expected segment of
the MPE user base will NOT be off the e3000 by
end-of-HP-support.


        With respect to producing a comprehensive business plan
for organizing and implementing an MPE "virtual Lab"
(vLab) like we have talked about:  Sure, OpenMPE or other
3rd-party companies with MPE expertise could do more
speculative brain-storming and even detailed "planning" on
what a vLab might look like and how it might function, IF
HP ever moved on the fundamental road blocks.  But without
something at least as strong as the proposed OpenMPE AIP
on the public record from HP, who would sign up to invest
in and be associated with what would be a
"virtual-squared" v2Lab, or put in all the time needed to
professionally work out the implementation details of same
for no pay ?? (Actually, for NEGATIVE pay, due to lost
opportunity costs).

        Certainly important details would have to be addressed
before any functioning vLab external to HP could go
online, but spending significant time and effort on any
such effort without having the slightest commitment from
HP on key licensing and source code access issues is
putting the cart way before the horse.  For HP to want a
comprehensive plan of operations before they are willing
to make any substantive commitments is in fact another
great delaying tactic, since that process could pretty
much go on ad infinitum.  HP appears to want a PERFECT
arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic before they
will consider making even the slightest alteration in
course to avoid the iceberg;  i.e.:  They're not ready to
let EITHER the chicken or the egg come first.  And if
endless delays let them avoid any substantive commitments
long enough, HP can just turn out the lights on MPE at the
end of 2006.


        I've had to come around to something a long-time,
respected member of the MPE community said to me recently:
 That person had for some time shared my thinking;  i.e.:
 A big part of the reason for all the non-action and wrong
actions by HP was likely just old-fashioned organizational
paralysis, internal conflicts, and who knows what all
similar etc.  But finally that person had to conclude that
a company like HP and its management ranks just could not
be THAT incompetent.  Which leaves me thinking that short
of a Pavlovian response to PR pain that alters their
current path, it doesn't look like HP will "get around" to
taking substantive steps to release their death-grip on
MPE until after it has ceased to matter (as some MPE "old
timers" have already said on the lists);  if it's not too
late already.

        Maybe the fat lady has already sung and maybe not.  But
if nothing else from the professional self-respect
perspective my bottom line is this:  Given the statements
and attitudes expressed in the above email from HP and
lack of any other sign of progress, I for one am not
willing to continue to give HP cover and keep smiling
while they screw MPE users who need to homestead after
2006.  Nothing speaks louder about the attitude of HP
management towards MPE users, than their dismissive
unwillingness to adjust their plans or respond in any
positive way to something so trivial as a request to post
Mike Paivinen's above email to the OpenMPE list.  Why
??...   Because they would be embarrassed to have
confirmation of continuing delay come out ??...  A word
comes to mind that summarize HP's current wish to keep MPE
users in the dark:  Contempt.  I can put up with quite a
bit, but I don't respond well to contempt.


        Note for the record that shortly after 11-14 I said on
3000-L that if HP did NOT take reasonable action in a
timely fashion to free MPE, I would boycott HP.  Time for
HP to "do the right thing" has expired;  we are at the
very least well into overtime.

        Therefore in the spirit of the famous 1990 "Boston Tea
Party" 13+ years ago, I'm delivering on what I said I
would do.  HP should do the same.

Unless and until the current state of affairs changes, I
say:

"Free MPE, or Boycott HP"


        If putting this out just before the Holidays makes me a
grinch, I'll just have to live with the guilt.
 Fundamentally I am not willing to let what we the BOD
found out at the beginning of November about HP's
continued foot dragging hang in silence into a new year.


        Finally, I would like to say that nothing in the above is
intended to disparage the work done or positions taken by
other members of the BOD.  For the reasons I stated above,
I have a philosophical difference with respect to the
applicability and precedence of HP's claim of NDA on the
above 31 October HP email.  Since receipt of that email
the BOD has in fact come up with a number of good ideas on
things that could and should still be done to facilitate
L4MAH.  Those efforts should continue if there is any
indication HP might be willing to move off dead-center....


Ken Sletten
SIGImage/SQL Chair
MPE / IMAGE user for 20+ years


FOOTNOTEs:

        If someone wants to forward this to 3000-L or other
discussion groups, you're more than welcome to do so.
 This is being sent from an email address that has so far
stayed spam-free;  and I'm hoping to be able to keep it
mostly that way at least for a while.  The address I have
posted to 3000-L from in the past picked up massive spam,
and I'd prefer not to have to alter this one right now.


        I regret my above is perhaps not as polished or organized
as it could have been if I had put in more time to work on
it.  Straight story is that not only do I have another
life, I expect that even if I retired from my full-time
day job I'd still be 100 percent busy.  So this will have
to be "good enough".  Happy Holidays.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *