"John R. Wolff" <[log in to unmask]> wrote

> The concern you have expressed is that it would just end up as a big
> referendum on continuing MPE after HP, leaving the lab engineers with
> nothing to work on between now and October 2003 if the SIB vote was
taken
> literally by CSY.  (This assumes that management would just fold up
the lab
> immediately with the idea that nobody was interested in the specific
> projects on the list  --  I doubt that.)

> You said that "CSY clearly
> recognizes that the majority of those voting want MPE to continue in
some
> form after 2006".  If that is the case, then this item is really
political,
> not technical, and does not even belong on the SIB at all since it is
not a
> lab project, but a management task.

This was precisely my reaction to this item: it did not belong on the
list at all.

> Therefore, I now feel that I wasted 10 out of 20 votes on expressing a
> sentiment (already understood by HP/CSY), that should have been
covered
> elsewhere in a simple survey.  I would have otherwise allocated those
10
> votes to practical lab projects of interest to my company, had I been
> properly informed.  This item should have been eliminated from the
list
> because it is not a technical project (unless the meaning of the item
would
> be to enhance the internal documentation of MPE to get it in shape for
> release to outside parties, in which case it was poorly worded).

Which is why I do not plan to cast any votes for that item (or the other
related item; was it #19?).

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *