Chuck,

        I understand and appreciate the frustrations and concerns that you have
expressed below (and before).  I know you are not alone with these thoughts.
Unfortunately we have had to play the hand we were dealt, the way we were
told to play it.  Granted we could have taken a hard-line approach of saying
no we won't do it that way and we would have been shutdown day one.  Perhaps
this would have stroked our egos that we did it our way and went down doing
it our way, but this isn't about the egos of the board members.  It's about
doing what needed to be done, in a way that it had to be done, to keep the
channels of communication open and the process moving forward in the desired
direction.  The approach is not going to be to everybody's liking and the
results are not going to satisfy everybody.  That's unfortunate, but that's
also reality, and that was going to happen no matter what was done or how it
was done.

        OpenMPE is controlled by it's members.  If those members (which I assume
you are one) do not like the results the board is getting or the way they
are going about it, then they have every right (which they should exercise)
to vote other people onto the board.

        Hopefully as we gain more control of our destiny we can maintain a greater
degree of "open" discussion about it.

Thanx,
        Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Ryan
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [OPENMPE] MPE/iX Licensing and Distribution for an Emulated
Environment


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Klein [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MPE/iX Licensing and Distribution for an Emulated
> Environment
>
>
> Jeff Vance writes a well said response to Wirt's comments about the
> license, so I won't go there.
>
> I would like to say, though that so far I've seen only one positive
> comment about the significant of this event. The rest can be taken as
> negative.
>
> OK - you guys that are complaining are welcome to be off of MPE at
> the end of 2006 and I don't expect you to look back and make any
> comments about what could've been or what might've been. If you stand
> on the sidelines and complain and don't offer constructive help, I
> don't want to hear about it. Otherwise, get involved. If you think
> you can do better than the current Board, run against me ... I'm up
> for re-election.
>

Actually this kind of sums up the main feeling I have gotten from the
OpenMPE board from day one.

With the exception of the attempt at stealth marketing research performed by
the board on HP's behalf there has been little to indicate any interest by
the board in the community's opinion at all. The entire process has been
hidden behind a stack of NDA's. The board presented OpenMPE as an open
community project and then stepped inside the board room and locked the door
on the community.

So now you present your results, and get what you consider is a less than
enthusiastic response, you feel the community is ungrateful so and so's who
need to take what they are given and shut up. Perhaps there might have been
more willing to participate and comment if they had actually been allowed
to.

> The OpenMPE Board, Jeff Vance, Mike Paivinen and the rest of the
> people involved that pulled this off need to be commended for the
> time and work spent on this effort. Without any licensing, there
> ain't no tomorrow. Period. End of story. Last one out, please turn
> out the lights.
>
> After all, you now have an alternative after 2006 that wasn't there
> just a few days ago. So, work with it and see where we go.
>

I would love to have the ability to run a few legacy apps on an emulated
system. But if HP is determined to make me jump through hoops to do it, then
it may not be worth the effort. Which is what I suspect is the goal of this
convoluted approach.

For right now this announcement tells me little more than I may be able to
boot MPE for $500 if a company chooses to write an emulator and I go buy
more HP hardware to run it on.

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





CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic message is legally privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee.  If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or any
attachment is strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be
corrected and delete it immediately.