OpenMPE should be renamed ClosedMPE to clearly position itself to the MPE
community.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Birket Foster" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 6:34 PM
Subject: Update from OpenMPE Board


Re: Halftime at the OPENMPE BowlTo The OpenMPE community,



The execution of a confidentiality agreement between the Board of Directors
of OpenMPE and Hewlett-Packard was an issue in the recent OpenMPE elections.
We would like to inform the membership of the outcome of recent discussions
between Hewlett-Packard and the OpenMPE Board of Directors as well as the
outcome of recent discussions among the OpenMPE Board; discussions that have
all occurred since the new Board was seated.



During the election, some members of OpenMPE expressed distrust of
Hewlett-Packard's motives in its dealings with OpenMPE and also expressed
dissatisfaction with the general lack of communication on the progress, or
lack of progress, being made towards OpenMPE objectives. This is entirely
understandable. The OpenMPE Board has not done a good job of communicating
with its membership, in part because it did not know what could be said.
Clearly, Hewlett-Packard does not share the same sense of urgency to make
decisions as many OpenMPE members.



It is standard business practice to engage in confidentiality agreements
when serious negotiations are taking place. One could thus take as a
positive HP's insistence on a confidentiality agreement; i.e. it wants to
negotiate seriously with OpenMPE. Of more practical importance, however, is
that a well-crafted Confidentiality Agreement can actually improve
communications. It gives HP the confidence it can openly discuss strategic
issues with the Board of OpenMPE and it provides a mechanism for the Board
to communicate issues and results to its members.



In negotiations with HP, we believe we have come up with a compromise that
adequately addresses both HP's desire for confidentiality of discussion and
the Board's desire for better communication with its members. A key change
was the length of the protection period, the period during which discussions
must be kept confidential unless it is mutually agreed that specific
information can be released. The original CDA called for a protection period
lasting until 12/31/2008. The revised protection period is end-of-support,
12/31/2006. While this is still longer than some of us believe is necessary,
it represents a reasonable compromise. HP has also agreed to protect any
designated OpenMPE confidential information.



We have had discussions about the need to keep the membership informed.
Agreeing to this CDA will not mean we are bringing down the cone of silence
until 12/31/2006. We believe, and HP agrees, that we can craft regular
messages that outline progress without violating either the letter or spirit
of the confidentiality agreement. It is up to the membership to hold the
Board responsible for this.



Therefore, the Board of Directors of OpenMPE has decided to enter into a
confidentiality agreement with HP in order to facilitate communication and
negotiation. It has also vowed to improve communication with the OpenMPE
membership.



--- Board of Directors, OpenMPE