Subject: Re: Repairing the damage (was Re: History of the NetBSD Foundation)
To: Andy Ruhl <email@example.com>
From: Charles M. Hannum <mycroft@MIT.EDU>
Date: 09/04/2006 14:48:06
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:17:24AM -0700, Andy Ruhl wrote:
> I can't agree with these arguments from the surface (I know nothing
> about the inner workings of TNF, I have to admit).
And you can't, because:
1) Substantially all of the discussion about the new bylaws (and the
outright lies I mentioned) was on a secret mailing list.
2) So are most of the complaints about the current structure.
3) In fact, much of it is even hidden from the committer community.
Last year's nomcom (or was it the year before? fuzzy memory.)
complained bitterly that the whole process was a sham and a train
wreck, but they couldn't even tell the committer community what
> But from the surface, I don't see how it can be as dramatic as this.
It's easy to make something look clean on the surface by erecting a
> What's at stake here that would cause you to make such comments?
Just what I said in my original statement: the future of the NetBSD
project. If it continues as it is, it will simply continue to waste
away. I don't see how that benefits anyone.