Subject: Re: History of the NetBSD Foundation
To: None <>
From: Marc Tooley <>
List: netbsd-users
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 
donations? :)

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 
recently booted.)

. 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.