Subject: Re: History of the NetBSD Foundation
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Marc Tooley <netbsdMLpostNO@spam.quake.ca>
Date: 09/01/2006 17:34:22
> Man, if this is the kind of drama on the private mailing lists, how
> do I get subscribed to those?! This whole discussion is very
> entertaining. ;)
Motion seconded. Show of hands?
Transparent history is the only way to defend against accusations of
this high a level anyway. I say release the minutes, the new bylaws,
the old bylaws, and official documentation to the public, especially
now that we're donating and it's a non-profit.
... or can we get honorary membership as a result of ongoing
Questions that my more gossip-y self is now very curious about, and
which I present only in utmost respect:
. What does Wasabi Systems have to do with this, why does Perry's name
keep popping up in conversation, and do these developers' agreements
have something to do with Wasabi's use of NetBSD? When Mr. Hannum
said, "I don't see any point in commenting on that, especially since
Perry already recognized some of the mistakes he made there[,]" this
implies to me that money has changed hands. Is this the case?
. Can a sample developer's agreement be posted so we can all take a look
and see just what's so important about them? Is there money involved?
. Why is Mr. Hannum not willing to sign on to a developer's agreement
with TNF and become a full member? What's in the agreement that doesn't
meet with what Mr. Hannum considers his best interests?
. Why is TNF not willing to simply grandfather Mr. Hannum in as an
original founding member instead of rejecting his access bits entirely
like that? What protection does this afford them that they didn't have
before, and why does TNF feel the need to protect itself thusly? (I
guess the same goes for the other long-standing developers who were
. It's obvious Mr. Hannum feels the need to protect either the original
developers' agreements or himself by holding onto those documents. Why
does he feel the need to do so? Specifically, it seems there's
something unspoken going on with regards to those agreements that
suggests either there's a large chunk of money involved or a large
chunk of liability that some lawyer has told someone they have to worry
about. Is this so?
. When the bylaws were re-drafted, did the final two members of the
Board of Directors vote and carry the motion to re-form the Foundation?
If not, then who precisely voted and under what justification did those
other individuals assert their authority to vote?
. Were these two members Mr. Hannum and Mr. Zoulas?
. Why did Herb resign and perhaps inadvertently create a deadlock
situation between the remaining voting members?
. When the corporation was in its abandoned state in Delaware, what are
the actual procedures there to either resurrect it or transfer
ownership to other people, and were these procedures followed?
. Are there any developers who make regular patches that actually get
accepted into the NetBSD core OS? If not, why not? Does this also have
something to do with these agreements that everyone keeps talking
See, I think partly why this is so.. damned.. interesting is that there
are huge volumes of unspoken material that would probably make the
discussion moot, and instead of posting these unspoken bits and
actually clearing up the confusion on the part of regular donators like
myself, nothing's coming to light that doesn't simply raise more
questions and use classic rhetoric to persuade.. who?
Thanks.. climbing off the soap-box now.