> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of donna hofmeister
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OpenMPE Minutes for October 9th.
> 
> I'm starting to lose track of how many people have come to me in the
> last
> few days whining about "the board signing the cda/nda".
> 
> in 2004 (go check the minute archives) hp was pressuring the board to
> sign
> an nda, essentially saying sign or we won't talk to you.  you can
> easily see
> in the archives where the board DID approve the WORDING of the nda
> (after
> extensive negociations with hp) but NO WHERE will you see that the
> board
> SIGNED an nda.
> 
> because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!
> 
> additionally, http://www.openmpe.org/minutes/Minutes20051215.htm
> clearly
> shows that hp relented.
> 
> hp and the board have operated all these years under a 'gentlepersons'
> understanding that our conversations are private.  it's been this
> understanding that fostered an atmosphere of trust for hp, showing
that
> openmpe was/is/and remains serious about our quest to preserve mpe's
> future.
> 

I am sorry but:

http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0406&L=OPENMPE&P=R934

Seems to indicate that even though you did not sign any such agreement,
you verbally committed to it. The minutes link you post above shows a
one line comment, with no explanation, that does nothing more than state
that HP has stopped demanding a 'signed' agreement to replace your
'verbal' agreement.

Either way the board apparently feels as bound by the verbal agreement
as they would a signed agreement as they have not shared any real
information with the members, without HP's permission, and obviously
holds their interests as paramount.

Bottom line:

The board has a better relationship with HP than the members.

Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.

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