Steve Suraci wrote :

> Based on the past couple responses, I think some of you might not have
> understood my position.  To clarify, I think that there are
> two separate
> issues that I addressed, the roles of the Board of Directors
> of OpenMPE and
> that of the MPE community and how each must go about the business of
> dealing with HP.
>
> My position is simple: the Board of Directors can not take the role of
> adversary in the negotiations with HP.  The Board needs to
> keep an open
> line of communication with HP if they are going to attain their
> objectives.

I could not agree more !!!! It was for this very reason that I have been
part of this Board for 2 1/2 years.

> If the community is upset by HP and their
> dealings with the
> Board then by all means they need to make waves.  Like many
> of the members
> of this organization, I believe the objectives of OpenMPE
> should have been
> addressed by HP long ago.

I agree with your last statement, Steve. We've lost time, and we may never
catch up. What I do not agree with, however, is the necessity, in your own
words, for the Community to "make waves". IMHO, wrecking havoc and
precipitating a PR disaster (more on that later) takes the big riosk of
being counter-productive, considering this Community's objectives.

I would not dissociate the Board's objectives from the Community's. After
all, this Board was voted in to represent the Community. Does everyone
remember the discussions when this Board was first proposed in the aftermath
of 11/14/01, and the careful weighing of customers, integrators,
consultants, and so forth ?

> It is very obvious to me that HP is teetering with a PR
> disaster and is
> well aware of it.

This is where I disagree. Let's be pragmatic : at best, CSY business
represented about 1% of HP's business, and probably way less in the final
years. They can easily do without less than 1% of their business. A PR
disaster, as far as MPE is concerned would involve only MPE customers, with
other standing on the sidelines unbothered and unconcerned. IMHO, it would
be a very minor PR disaster.

> I would encourage the community to put as
> much pressure
> on HP as possible.

In theory, I agree. but I would urge the community to be cautious. Like
always, be careful what you wish for, cause that may exactly be what you
could get.

> Speaking to the press and organizing HP product
> boycotts are great ways to keep our issues in the forefront and the
> pressure on HP to move on our objectives.

Steve, you score ONE MAJOR POINT : keep the issue in the forefront. This is
positive pressure, and it may help achieve a few objectives. This, I agree
with. Wholeheartedly.

But boycotts, I don't agree with. First, they tend to have very limited
effects. So what are you suggesting ? That MPE customers dissatisfied with
HP's handling of the MPE issue flee en masse to other suppliers ? So what ?
they're honna buy AS/400s, Lexmark printers and supplies, Cisco network
equipment, IBM and/or Microsoft operating systems, CA middleware. HP
probably does not care.

Besides, boycotts tend to hurt the people they are supposed to help. Let me
explain myself. Suppose some custoemrs boycott HP products. Now, who do
these people get their products from ? HP-certified Third Parties. These
partners have long ago begun to sell ALL HP products, not only MPE stuff. As
a copnsequence, if you boycott HP products, you cut your preferred
HP-certified distributor/partner/integrator/third party out of business. You
are trying to help your partner ? You are strangling them, with the best
intentions in mind. That's where a boycott does not make it, and I do not ,
repeat NOT advocate one.

>  This type of activity will only
> serve to increase the negotiating position of the Board.

Keep the OpenMPE issue in the forefront, yes. Boycott, not so sure.

> I will state again that we know what drives HP decision
> making.  The voice
> of the community must be heard for them to fully appreciate
> the long term
> impact to their P&L that alienating the MPE community could
> have.  How many
> of you have HP 9000’s or Storage products in your shops?  How
> about PC,
> laptops, and printers?  I would even ask: How many HP 9000
> customers are
> getting a warm and fuzzy for how the end of life for their
> products might
> be addressed by HP?

All of us, by now, I would guess. But even if ALL MPE shops were to boycott
ALL HP products, the net result would be to weaken HP partners, not HP
themselves. Remember, at the height of the installed base, there were about
60,000-odd MPE shops, worldwide. How many Laserjet shops are there,
worldwide ? Do you think a boycott of HP products by all remaining MPE shops
worldwide can seriously put a dent in HP's business ?

> My position is that the Board has been tasked with negotiating our
> objectives to HP.  It is very counter-productive for them to
> now have to
> take a step back in that process to deal with the
> non-disclosure issue.
> Ken's stament and the Computerworld article are not on the
> same topic.  Ken
> was a board member and the Computerworld artice was from the
> community.
> The board has its job and so does the community.  Just don’t
> confuse the
> two!

I agree with your statement re: the Board's objectives. However, advocating
a boycott byt the community is exactly the step I am not willing to take.
One more reason I chose not to run for re-election.

Good luck,

Christian