Cross-posted from 3000-L mailing list:

For those that have yet to cast their vote for the OpenMPE board 
election,  and for inquiring minds as well, my answers follow. 
Thanks to Ron Seybold for  the questions, and thanks to Candidate 
Donna for being the first to jump.   Also, I would like to suggest 
that these questions are a good starting point for  the new OpenMPE 
board, and I would like to see each of the incumbents  answer these 
as well, following the board election.

1. HP has expanded its "permissible upgrade" language in its RTU 
licenses.  Does the vendor need to offer anything to the community to 
prohibit the  movement of MPE/iX from system to system? Something 
perhaps like unlocking  the horsepower of the 3000s in the A and N 
Class?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer:  "Prohibit the movement" and 
"unlocking  the horsepower"seem to be separate topics, so I will 
address unlocking the  horsepower.

On first blush this seems like a great idea - making it easier for 
the remaining  users to increase server performance.  And I am all 
for it.  However, first we  might ask why would HP do this at this 
time to a product line that has less  than 24 months of HP support? 
If delivered by HP proper this type of change  would not only add new 
breath to the e3000, it would add new life to a  platform that is 
being shut down.  So because of the unlikelihood of this  happening I 
do not think it is a direction that OpenMPE should concentrate 
resources on at this time.

2. How soon must HP make a decision about its source code licensing 
for the  3000's operating environment? Is it acceptable for the 
vendor to wait until the  start of 2010, as it plans to do now?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer:  It occurs to me that this 
"decision"  belongs to HP and that it is not the purview of others to 
presume to tell HP  what they must do, let alone how soon.  Having 
said this, is it possible that  HP could well have already made this 
decision? And that the decision is the  source code will not be 
released?  I believe that the OpenMPE board needs to  take this real 
possibility under consideration and re-evaluate its goals and 
purposes to best serve the community should the source code not 
become  available.

3. What is the one achievement for OpenMPE which the group must 
accomplish during 2008 - the mission which the group must not fail at?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer:  To properly serve the community 
I  believe OpenMPE needs more than one singular achievement goal, and 
this  needs to be more than wishing and hoping to acquire and 
maintain the MPE  source code.  It would seem that supporting a 30+ 
year old operating system  with a shrinking market would be 
financially very challenging; especially for an  organization that 
publicly states it has no money, no income, and no source of  revenue 
other than limited contributions.  Addressing questions four and five 
below might be a good place to begin discussing and outlining 2008 
target  achievements.

4. Should third party support providers have access to HP's 
diagnostics,  especially stable storage tools, in case of a system 
board failure, or the  closing of a software company which cannot 
update licenses (with HPSUSAN  numbers) any longer?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer: Third party companies already 
have  offerings and new offerings are being openly discussed. 
OpenMPE needs to be  evaluating what can be offered should HP not 
provide additional access.

5. Should OpenMPE go after the mission of testing the dozens of beta 
test  patches still stuck inside HP's 3000 labs? What can the group 
do to convince  HP that the expertise is in place to do that testing, 
and release the HP  improvements and engineering to the full 
3000community?

Candidate Keith Wadsworth's answer:  This raises many questions about 
the  needs of the users, and the OpenMPE organization as well.  For 
example, is  there any hard data that strongly indicates that a large 
number of remaining  users, or even a small number, need these 
patches?  I believe the OpenMPE  board needs to raise, explore and 
answer such questions thoroughly.

Addressing the question of testing, although the OpenMPE board 
members and  members at large command considerable expertise, it does 
not seem apparent  that OpenMPE as a whole has the ability, let alone 
the infrastructure, to  conduct such testing.

I believe addressing these multiple subjects are important and urgent 
tasks for  OpenMPE and its directors.

Thank you for your vote!  I welcome questions and dialog.
Keith Wadsworth
Orbit Software
[log in to unmask]
1.800.896.7248, or +1.510.686.7913, ext. 4300.