good call, Ron.  best of luck (and no, I'm not holding my breath)!

Tracy I want my MPE Pierce

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Horner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Official OpenMPE Directors Response to the
> Article of March 22, 2004 in ComputerWorld
>
>
> I think there is some things here that need explaining.  HP
> does not have to
> work with us, or anyone, on the subject of MPE.  They can
> just close it
> down.  The fact that they are willing to talk things over
> with OpenMPE is a
> positive step.  Just remember they don't have to do this.
>
> I understand that passions run high about MPE.  I've spent
> the past 15 years
> working on the platform.  I want to see MPE live a long life.
>  But chest
> thumping, stomping of feet, or holding of ones breath till
> one turns blue
> will not make HP move one inch.  We have to move carefully
> and work with HP.
> There, I said it.  Work with HP to get what we want.  We must
> all be strong
> and back those people who HP is willing to talk with about
> MPE.  That is
> where OpenMPE is.  HP is willing to talk to us about MPE.
>
> As a sign of good faith, OpenMPE is willing to sign an NDA
> agreement.  We
> need that agreement to be able to have the discussions about
> MPE.  Might I
> add that in the beginning, we did have a blanket NDA.
> Because of the emails
> that Ken sent revealing statements made under NDA, we have to
> go down the
> NDA road again.  It doesn't matter whether or not the dialog
> had nothing of
> substance.  The conversation was under NDA and should not have been
> revealed.  At that point, HP could have stopped talking to OpenMPE all
> together.  They did not.
>
> This is not the time for demanding that HP turn over MPE.
> For MPE, HP is
> the only game in town.  They have the ball.  We have to work
> with them to
> let us play with that ball.  We as a community want the same
> thing.  Let us
> regain our focus and stand behind the OpenMPE Board.  Play an
> active roll in
> this discussion with HP.  I'm not defending HP and their
> actions.  But, HP
> is the one in control here.  We must never forget that.  This is about
> giving everyone involved what they want.  This is politics.
>
>
> Ron Horner
> Legacy Systems Supervisor
> ronh@ladyremingtonjewelry
> Lady Remington Jewelry
> (630) 860-3323
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of John
> Burke
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:20 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Official OpenMPE Directors Response to the
> Article of March 22,
> 2004 in ComputerWorld
>
> >
> > Official OpenMPE Directors Response to the Article of March
> > 22, 2004 in
> > ComputerWorld
> >
> > OpenMPE, Inc. was formed as an organization of HPe3000 users,
> > vendors and
> > consultants shortly after Hewlett-Packard announced in
> > November of 2001
>
> <-- big snip-->
>
> I've been at the West Coast Solutions Symposium and have not
> had a chance to
> comment until now.
>
> GREAT RESPONSE!!!
>
> Very professional but also firm. Congratulations to Board.
>
> Two things need clarification.
>
> 1. At the end of the "Response ...", it says, "We have been
> waiting for HP
> to announce its roadmap plan since the end of January, and
> then February,
> but so far nothing has been forthcoming." In Mike Paivenen's
> email of 3/26,
> he says, "We did provide a communication timeline to the
> OpenMPE Board at
> the end of January, as promised." In his email of 2/10, Mike
> also said,
> "Last Friday, vCSY met with the OpenMPE Board of Directors to
> provide them
> an update on a couple of the important items on the e3000 end-of-life
> roadmap."
>
> So Mike says HP provided what it promised, but the Board says
> it did not. Or
> are we caught in a definition of "what is is"?
>
> 2. Earlier in the "Response ...", it says, "HP has told us
> they want to
> share their roadmap and strategy with OpenMPE and has
> required the Board of
> Directors of OpenMPE to agree to a confidentiality agreement
> to do this."
>
> If this means the Board has already agreed to an NDA, this is a huge
> mistake. Five ninths of the Board is being elected in the
> current election.
> At the eleventh hour the Board agrees to an NDA that binds
> future Board
> members? Not good. If elected to the Board, my first action will be a
> resolution to rescind the NDA pending renegotiation. Two things are
> required: a termination date and a quid-pro-quo. I would also
> point out that
> the bylaws are not at all clear on when the terms of Board
> members expire so
> it could be argued that any actions taken in March are
> illegal. It is best
> to have the new Board deal with this issue as its first order
> of business.
>
> John Burke
> Burke Consulting
> Tel: 916-987-0265
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>