Hi,

In response to John Burke's question about who is on the MPE Forum:

Tony Furnivall (chair)
Leslie Virgilio
Duane Percox
Bill Lancaster
Debbie Lawson (Interex Director of Advocacy)

Duane and I began working with the MPE Forum around the January/February
timeframe.  Duane and I are also serving on the IPROF (now called the HP
3000 Solutions Symposium) Task Force, which is part of the MPE Forum.

The questions about the purpose of the MPE Forum are excellent.  While
serving on the High Availability Forum we had an opportunity to establish
the purpose of that group.  It was much easier since there really wasn't
much in the way of advocacy regarding high availability issues.

When I was asked (or when I volunteered, I don't remember which) to serve
on the MPE Forum I asked the question myself.  My understanding of the
Forum's (I know, it's actually "fora" but who really cares? :-) is that
they were designed to meet a need that the SIG's don't.  That is, to be a
focused, directed strategic concerns group.  Each SIG has its own focus,
which contains both tactical and strategic elements, but no one group was
tasked with attempting to focus/force Interex attention to broad-based
strategic issues solely for the benefit of the HP 3000 community.

One of the reasons that the purpose of the MPE Forum (or any of the Interex
Forums, for that matter) isn't widely understood is there has been a
near-total lack of public discourse regarding these groups.  I struggled
with that myself for some time as I had had several years involvement in
SIG's.  I also struggled with the concept that the Forums are appointed.  I
still do.  I pretty much horned my way in in order to address issues close
to my heart (IPROF, perceived (and real) shortcomings about HP 3000
specific advocacy from Interex, etc).  I think that I have pretty good
motives but, in a democratic environment public discourse serves to
publically evaluate those motives.  I acknowledge that my participation in
Interex, in general, and the MPE Forum, in particular, has some
self-serving aspects.  I have no problem with scrutiny about those
self-serving aspects and fully expect my peers in the groups in which I
serve and the people I desire to serve to provide adequate
checks-and-balances to ensure that my interests don't supercede the
interests of the constituency.

That all being said, I do have to take issue with Tony's comments about not
serving under public scrutiny and about not responding to "charges and
challenges".  When I injected myself into the MPE Forum I did not agree to
do what the Interex Board does.  That is, the Interex Board chooses, as a
group, to not respond individually to issues.  Personally, I don't agree
with this philosophy.  Participation in this type of group, whether it's
the Board or a Forum, doesn't eliminate our rights in free speech society.
Unless I'm under non-disclosure, I would be happy to tell anyone what I'm
involved with in any aspect of my Interex activities.

Regarding public scrutiny, I think that the MPE Forum *should* be much more
communicative about what it's doing.  To that end, we set up a
teleconference two weeks ago with key SIG leaders to begin the process by
which we, an appointed/self-appointed group, communicates more fully with
our elected MPE-oriented brethren (and sistren), in this case specifically
to discuss the HP 3000 Solutions Symposium (formerly IPROF).  The
conference call was productive, in my mind, and is forcing a broader group
to assist in giving definition to what the MPE Forum is supposed to be
doing.  It also brought to light a certain amount of incredulity from some
of the SIG leaders as to some of the things the MPE Forum is involved in
without their knowledge.  My belief is that the SIG leaders have every
right to know everything the MPE Forum is doing, unless there is some type
of non-disclosure involved from HP's perspective.

Regarding the actual make-up of the MPE Forum, I believe that the MPE SIG
leaders should be ex-officio members of this group.  While they all have
probably more work than they can possibly do (thus mandating, IMO, the need
for appointed members), they have the right to be included in the strategic
thinking of Interex regarding their platform of choice.  In the conference
call we discussed the possibility of the MPE-related SIG leaders becoming
ex-officio members of the MPE Forum.  We are planning on continuing this
discussion at HP World.  My hope is that we are able to go forward on this,
creating a larger MPE-related strategic force within Interex that is
representative and accountable.


Bill Lancaster