To the OpenMPE Community,

I would like to comment on a couple of points that John Burke raised in his
March 25th posting.

> 2. HP's failure to meet its own privately communicated plan to "provide a
> communication timeline to the OpenMPE Board by January 31, 2004" as
> indicated in the Mike Paivenen letter to the OpenMPE Board dated 10/31/03.
>
> 3. HP's failure to make good on one of its few public promises related to
> OpenMPE, made in this forum on 2/10/04 to "provide an update to the entire
> e3000 community, which should happen by the end of the month".
>

We did provide a communication timeline to the OpenMPE Board at the end of
January, as promised.  We asked the Board to provide us feedback and
scheduled a meeting in early February to discuss their questions and
concerns.  We also asked the Board to keep the information confidential
while we were discussing it and told them that we would share the
information in an update to the broader OpenMPE community.

As I noted in my posting to the OpenMPE list after that meeting, "The Board
proposed several ideas for improving the collaboration between vCSY and
OpenMPE that we are considering.  Once we have had a chance to review those
ideas and respond to the Board, we will provide an update to the entire
e3000 community, which should happen by the end of the month."

I want to personally apologize to the OpenMPE membership for not providing
some kind of update at the end of February.  The Board proposed some
interesting ideas and our discussions have extended into this month.  However,
I should have let you know at the end of February that the update would be
delayed.

We are currently drafting the update and expect to have it posted within
the next two weeks.

Mike Paivinen
MPE/iX R&D Project Manager