Speaking of SIG ? What Ken is asking for and the rest of us MPER's is when are we going to hear from the OPENMPE group on our mission to make MPE /IMAGE an open source via a license. Not much activity reported from OpenMPE -------------- Original message from Sletten Kenneth W KPWA : -------------- > Donna started yesterday on 3000-L: > ========================================= > > .... > during sig mpe, we talked about the possibility of sig image merging in. > imo, most of the people at the meeting were in favor of doing this. .... > > after the meeting, someone approached me about sig image and asked if it was > a good idea to include eloquence. i thought it was quite an interesting > suggestion. > > i strongly believe that image users still need a strong voice (via a > sig) to express their concerns/needs to hp. i think the issue surrounding > large file datasets and the upcoming sql standard are two obvious examples. > i believe too that eloquence user will benefit from having a unified voice. > > so, what say ye? > > - should sig image merge with sig mpe? > - should sig image include eloquence users and become sig image/eloquence? > - any other suggestions? > ======================================== > > WRT Donna's ?, my votes: > > YES, SIGImage/SQL should merge with SIGMPE. > YES, Eloquence should be included. > > FWIW, 2 or 3 years ago at SIGImage/SQL meeting users DID > vote to include Eloquence. That by itself does not mean > it still has to be, but for the record. > > WRT outstanding issues: Large file datasets (LFD) + SQL99: > Definitely significant issues, and should get attention. > BUT (and I perhaps did not make this as clear as I could > have in my pre-HPW postings that resulted in cancellation > of SIGImage/SQL meeting at HPW-2004): > > In my discussions with the HP Database Lab prior to HPW-2004, > it was my clear understanding that there is no chance... read > that as NO CHANCE... that HP will undertake any more work on > Image that would be considered an enhancement; i.e.: As long > as HP has Image, SQL99 is NOT going to be incorporated. Would > be happy to have HP disagree, but not holding my breath. IMO > only chance this will happen is if SIGMPE / OpenMPE can get HP > to release its death grip on MPE and subsystems, and somebody > else does it. > > WRT LFD: If somebody can demonstrate that there is an outright > bug, then HP has an obligation to fix it. But AFAIK, it's not > that it breaks, it's just slow and clunky. Remain open to > correction. > > > Then after other comments the Chairman of the Board stepped in: > ========================================= > > And I agree with the concept also. > > In order to effect an orderly transition, the heads of the two SIGs in > question should contact Interex and find out what needs to happen in order > to merge. It could be as simple as folding one SIG (sigimage) and then > expanding the mission of the other SIG (sigmpe). > > Denys > =========================================== > > Donna and John Burke: > > Given we have the support of the COB, as the active leaders > of SIGMPE, will you take the lead on this ?? I am in full > agreement with need to merge, and will support whatever you > all come up with. > ========================================== > > Then Lendy Sanford Cooke: > ========================================== > > Donna, > My vote is, no matter what, Eloquence should be added to > Image's Sig. I also believe that Sig Image needs separate > representation for one more year. If HP may see a SIG > merger as a sign that our issues don't have the backing from > the user community to keep the SIG running. ..... > ========================================== > > In another time and place in the life of MPE and Image, > Lendy's above on keeping SIGImage/SQL going for another > year would be the prudent thing to do. However, in the > current situation I think keeping SIGImage/SQL separate > will not provide any added value. Problem is not lack > of backing from the users: It is lack of backing from > the VENDOR. > > > IMO core issue remains the same: > > Either HP will release / license MPE and its subsystems > to one or more third parties soon (it is on the verge of > being if not aleady too late), or it will not. If HP > does not, the only question is the slope of the glide > path on "fade to black". In saying that I realize that > many users will continue to run MPE for years after HP > exit; and that well-regarded companies like Allegro, > Beechglen, etc. will continue to support it for years. > But the cold, hard realities are what they are. > > Believe it was long-time usual suspect Duane Percox who > shortly after Black Wednesday 11-14 prophetically said: > "MPE is dead. Get over it." > > Kind of depends on what the meaning of the word "is is", > I suppose, but with HP still refusing to say until last > half of 2005 whether or not they will even CONSIDER > licensing / releasing MPE, Duane's words are (sadly) IMO > the operative and accurate description. Note there has > been no substantive news from OpenMPE BOD either; clock > continues to run, and nothing has happened that we know of. > > > Now return myself to regularly scheduled day of real work. > > Ken Sletten > Temporary / caretaker / outgoing SIGImage/SQL Chair, > and (as much as possible) ex-HP-customer. > > * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * > * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html * * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *