Mon, 04 Sep 2006 @ 22:13 +0200, Lasse Hillerĝe Petersen said:

> Between what could be viewed as sidestepping from one side and
> the vicious attacks from the other side (Hannum) it is hard to
> tell where the truth in all this lies. Somewhere in the middle
> I guess (and hope.)

I think a lot of us *BSD users have felt like this over the years.

I think the whole idea of walling off "the core" and keeping anything
about this project a secret is just plain wrong.

Why not just make it all public, all the time?

The mechanics of NetBSD management, including discussions about its
future, internal development, etc, are important to end users.

> Heh. The company I work for has just been subsumed by a big,
> three-letter IT-giant of a primary color. The new contract I
> have received contains - as far as I can see - nothing that
> even approaches the strong words of the NetBSD Developers'
> Agreement. It should be abolished sooner rather than later.

Maybe someone can explain the root justification for a few things to end
users of NetBSD:

	- why do we need a corporate entity?
	- why does the core have to have privacy when discussion this public
	  project?
	- why can't sub-projects requiring things like NDAs be handled
	  quite apart from the NetBSD project?
	- why do meetings about NetBSD have to be private?

It just seems that the users and the project as a whole would be better
served without this stuff.


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["We have nothing to prove" -- Alan Dawkins]