I'm not going to quote anyone's postings here, I'd like to keep this as
generic as possible without even remotely offending anyone; perhaps I
should have done this initially.  I can't hide the fact that I have a very
close personal interest in the list in spite of the fact that is now a
firmly established entity in the anarchy of usenet.  I've been more than
concerned about this recent "conflict" in light of my idea of our purpose,
success, and value to the readership.
 
I have previously stated informal guidelines for posting (not that I dictate
the rules, I let you run the list; my "editorial powers" are limited to mail
bounces (policies previously stated earlier this week) and Listserv's filter
for spam).  However, what I feel to be a key to our success has been the
presence and participation of HP and vendors in an informal setting without
the blatant commercialism you would find on a vendor-provided list.  Given
recent events within CSY and the accompanying exodus of HP input to the list
I don't want to do *anything* to discourage CSY input.  It is a vanishing
resource that we pioneered - an open, informal line to the labs without
waiting for the annual IPROF meeting to get your 15 minutes of contact.
 
I would like to thank Larry Byler, Larry Boyd, Jon Cohen, James Overman,
and numerous others that continue to post to the list.  I would also like
to thank Mike Belshe, Steve Elmer, Steve Bitondo, Nicole Saeger, Jeff Vance
and others who made so many valuable contributions in the past but most of
whom are no longer directly working with CSY (or at least MPE).  I eagerly
await Bangalore to join the discussion, we've had some postings from Mohan
and others, but overall HP participation is declining since the "peak" in
the 5.0 days when jazz was launched.  And as to the "marketing" twist that
was attributed to Jim's post, he's not a marketing critter, he's the project
manager for TS7x24.
 
We have had "marketing" flavor posts from HP in the past; George Stachnik's
posts about the TCU broadcasts and audio presentations, PowerPatch summary
postings, Nicole Saeger's OpenMarket Server announcement, etc.  In light of
this I don't think the TurboStore Online announcement was out of line.  For
anyone interested in the product, you didn't have to wait on the Communicator
article.  If you weren't interested, the subject was clearly indicated.
This is an HP-3000 (emphasis on "HP") list, I still don't understand why it
was perceived as out-of-context.  Yes, it's an add-on product, but depending
on when/how you ordered your 3000, so is Image, Allbase, Cobol, Image/SQL,
OpenMarket, SPL, Fortran, and everything else.  Jim's posting was near
verbatim of the Communicator write-up.  Still, I can understand Denys'
concerns, and I don't want to lose his invaluable input to the list any more
than I want to lose CSY input.  "Can't we all just get along".
 
In summary, I do not want to see any censure or criticism of HP input unless
they start throwing 9000 migration in our face, especially when this list can
provide an advance source of information unavailable elsewhere unless you
care to wait for the official publications.  There was much recent discussion
about network printing; would you be opposed to seeing the details posted by
someone at CSY?  I would think not since everyone seems to be chomping at the
bit to find the details now.  Is this unfair to competitors?  I think not, I
replied to the network printing thread and pointed out shortcomings with
their offering and clearly stated you might still need 3rd party help.  That
is the value of this forum, say what you think from a real-world perspective.
 
Perhaps my view is incorrect, but I feel that we should extend some liberty
to HP for *any* input they wish to provide.  If you feel that we must
somehow censure HP input to the list, then I have failed miserably in my
efforts to provide such a forum and we have degenerated the list back to
the mundane standard of any other mailing list.
 
If there is a concensus of opinion that this is unfair, perhaps we should
relax our unofficial guidelines to provide "equal time" to any vendor who
cares to post details.  Or even with our current status quo, any competitor
is welcome to refute any perceived "marketing" post -- just reply to the
post with the original text and add any refutation/additions you wish.  If
it's posted here, it's fair game (this has been done before with a particular
9000 migration post).  It's up to you, the readership, to decide what you
want; but nobody can enforce your decisions.  I don't run the show, I'm just
the janitor for the mailing list component of comp.sys.hp.mpe.
 
I *will* however insist that HP input is open, encouraged, and welcome.  If
we can't maintain an open channel with the vendor, we have failed in my
intended purpose.  Our existance could be intimidating to WCSO as it stands,
so I'm quite pleased HP allows their people to participate in the first
place.  Let's not place any barriers of our own in their way.
 
Respectfully,
 
Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>