Gads!  I leave for a month and a half and come back to this?  

Quite a surprise.  May I enter this from a half-baked hacker's point
of view?

Looking at the way it has been presented in summary, I would say that I
support Theo's basic premise and that, since it was a personal matter,
Jon went a bit haywire and overstepped his bounds in dragging the rest of
the NetBSD users and developers into it.  End of story.

If we're going to do this NetBSD thing here, let's do it.  Let's keep the
focus on NetBSD and the like.  If the mail is personal, it should stay
personal.  If it has to do with NetBSD, it deserves to be propagated as
relevance proscribes.

Why people are drawing lines between one's personal side and one as one
relates to a group project, I don't know.  It's a self-defined non-sequitur;
i.e. neither really has sufficient bearing on the other to alter its
course.

I'm surprised that Theo didn't reply in kind to what Mr. Stone did --
that kind of thing just seems so unethical.  If you have a personal problem,
the best you can really do is:
	1.  make a good faith attempt to work it out.  Failing that...
	2.  ...just part ways.  Or try to.

Yeh, yeh, you can all tell me this sounds like crap, but look -- it's
not really any more so than anything else we've seen here in the last day
or so.

In short:

	Screw the politics and the egos -- they don't belong here.
	Just lick your wounds and let's keep going on, for if we *don't*
	do this, the NetBSD effort will get so mired down in its politics
	and its flames that development will die, and that would be a very
	sad thing.

I'm sorry if this whole thing is out of line, but this whole scene
shouldn't have happened here.  I'd have expected it more in a MicroSquish
vs. UNIX type of setting.

Please forgive me the inclusion of the entire message.  I'm not well-
versed in mailtool and that's all I have with which to read mail at
the moment.  And, Theo -- pardon me for "forwarding this letter without
consent".  It's contextually relevant and should probably be included.


Anxiously awaiting a new computer...

					--*greywolf;

#: From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@theos.com>
#: 
#: i have said nothing publically about any of this before. i will
#: comment on only a few things.
#: 
#: > (However, this belief is tempered by the fact that he's apparently
#: > forwarded e-mail that i sent illegally, without my consnet.)
#: 
#: that may be your belief, if you need to you will need to prove it. i
#: also believe that mail i sent (with a header like yours) was forwarded
#: without my permission. oh well. in any case, i don't believe the
#: headers to have any legal impact -- i wouldn't use the word
#: "illegally" as you have.
#: 
#: (a few months ago, i did reiterate the content of the mail(s) to a few
#: people i know. that mail is very rude and i'm not surprised that you
#: don't want it `forwarded'.)
#: 
#: my view on things is that i was actually kicked out because of the
#: content of PRIVATE mail sent in a PERSONAL situation.
#: 
#: > > Core asked Theo to leave the group based on "receiving a considerable
#: > > amount of complaints about the fact that you seem to harass and abuse
#: > > both users and developers of NetBSD".  The facts were others, I could
#: > > collect some of the mail I got.
#: 
#: i have repeatedly asked core to bring some of these things forward,
#: and they've not done so. meanwhile, there are similar situations for
#: many of the other people, sitting in mail archives all over the place.
#: it would be good if we could make it past these petty past
#: things. quite often complaints are not valid either:
#: 
#: > Indeed, not long after the project started, complaints started rolling
#: > in about Theo.  The final straw was that he told a developer (who was
#: > working on the pmax port) to stop "shoving [his; the developer's] cock
#: > down [his; theo's] throat."
#: > 
#: > Theo will be glad to tell you, i'm sure, that this was in response to
#: > another series of arguments, a more personal series of arguments, or
#: > many such things.  However, the point is, THIS IS NOT THE LANGUAGE
#: > THAT A "PROFESSIONAL" USES, and it is _completely_ unacceptable for a
#: > representative (in 'core' or not) to treat a user or developer like
#: > this.  It is unprofessional, asinine, and OBSCENE.  It doesn't matter
#: > that or if the comment was provoked; it should NEVER, EVER have
#: > been made.
#: 
#: 1) I sent first email to Jonathan about something technical: I expressed
#:    surprise that something worked different on the dec r3000 processors
#:    than on the idt r3000 processors. this mail had relevance to netbsd.
#: 
#: 2) Jonathan Stone took my surprise (which was my ignorance) as hostility,
#:    and sent me 6 pieces of personal hate mail. i replied repeatedly in mail
#:    for him to stop -- that I was not listening. none of these private mails
#:    (except perhaps the first he sent) had any relevance to netbsd -- they
#:    were personal.
#: 
#: 3) once i was positively sure his mail being sent at a PERSONAL level,
#:    and not at a NetBSD level, i sent him the mail Chris described above.
#:    that was private mail, and personal.
#: 
#: 4) Jonathan communicated with my boss and made my work life difficult. not
#:    surprising; perhaps i would have been wise to do the same because of the
#:    mail he sent me (but i am not the kind of person who would escalate
#:    personal things to the job level).
#: 
#: 5) Jonathan (accidentally, he says) posted a huge flame against me on
#:    the port-pmax mailing list.
#: 
#: 6) i replied with something that perhaps was not appropriate -- but it was
#:    defending myself. i believe Charles Hannum censored that posting.
#: 
#: 7) about a week later I found that I was kicked out of:
#: 	1) core
#: 	2) CVS
#: 	3) port-sparc development
#: 
#: Chris (and the core) apparently believe that a person involved in
#: NetBSD cannot have personal communications with another NetBSD person
#: without those communications impacting the project. i have been
#: punished, meanwhile Jonathan Stone now has CVS access.
#: 
#: my actions were unproffesional but that's irrelevant because they were
#: PERSONAL. they had nothing whatsoever to do with NetBSD -- Jonathan
#: made sure of that by making it perfectly clear it that the issues were
#: personal.
#: 
#: > 	(1) refused to acknowledge that his actions and statements
#: > 		were unprofessional, damaging to the project, and
#: > 		'wrong,' and has gone to great lengths to rationalize
#: > 		them, and has
#: 
#: my actions had nothing to do with NetBSD. i have not rationalized any
#: of my actions. these are things as they happened; and just a few days
#: ago on the phone you indicated that you had no idea about some of the
#: details I have described above (apparently Charles censored my
#: self-defense posting and core never received it either). on the phone
#: you accepted these as new facts and asked me to mail you details
#: (which I did).
#: 
#: > 	(2) refused to indicate in any way that he would in the future
#: > 		attempt to behave in a professional manner -- in both
#: > 		public and private communications wherever the project
#: > 		might be effected.
#: 
#: i have refused to let my privately sent mail be used against me, that
#: is true. of course, it has a header on it which says that people
#: cannot redistribute it. never the less, I am not prepared to let it
#: happen again.
#: 
#: > I don't particularly care about the former.  However, the latter is
#: > _vitally_ important, because if he's going to be in any way a
#: > representative of the project (even as much as being a person with CVS
#: > tree access or being a port maintainer implies) then we _must_ be sure
#: > that the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated.
#: 
#: > 	(1) been honest in my representation of the situation to
#: > 		people, when i've discussed it at all.  (There are
#: > 		good reasons not to discuss it, such as privacy
#: > 		concerns and the fact that entire situation is
#: > 		amazingly stupid.)
#: 
#: as far as I know there are no privacy issues involved -- i have been
#: completely open about what happened and invite anyone to open their
#: mail archives open as wide as they can.
#: 
#: and yes, the entire situation is amazingly stupid. it's been 3 months
#: that i've been talking to you, and it feels like no headway has been
#: made. you still will not admit that private personal mail is unrelated
#: to the project, not that i've made that a requirement: i've made it
#: quite clear that i just want to get back to commiting things.
#: 
#: > All that Theo has to do to satisfy _me_ (I can't speak for the other
#: > members of 'core' -- at least two of the other three of them have to
#: > be satisfied as well) that he should be given access to the source
#: > tree is give his word, in good faith that:
#: > 
#: > 	(1) he will try his best to work constructively with the
#: > 		members of 'core' and the various port maintainers
#: > 		and others who have CVS tree access, and
#: > 
#: > 	(2) he will display a "professional" attitude, and communicate,
#: > 		in both public and private, in a no less than a
#: > 		"professional" manner with current and potential users
#: > 		and developers of NetBSD.
#: > 
#: > Both of those are expected implicitly of the people who are given source
#: > tree access.  Because of past events, I feel that it's necessary for
#: > Theo to explicitly agree to them before he can be given source tree
#: > access or accounts on NetBSD developement machines again.
#: 
#: i have agreed to all these points -- many times now -- except one piece:
#: 
#: i do not accept that my private mail IN A PERSONAL SETTING can be used
#: against me. someone was sending me PERSONAL HATE mail, unrelated to
#: NetBSD but related to my person, and wouldn't stop mailbombing me, and
#: it is not perhaps not surprising that i sent him such mail in reply. i
#: will continue to deal with private personal matters in my own way as i
#: feel, and professionalism or NetBSD have nothing to do with it.
#: 
#: > Read those carefully: there's _NOTHING_ in any way objectionable in
#: > either of them, assuming that one (a) wants to actively work to
#: > improve the NetBSD project, and (b) believes that "professional" conduct
#: > is appropriate in business-like situations.
#: 
#: there is something somewhat objectionable in there, and have indicated
#: that i feel wrong about it. there's a built-in assumption that NetBSD
#: core will once again use private personal mail against me.
#: 
#: that is the ONLY thing i am objecting to.
#: 
#: of course, that objection kind of fits in with what was done to me
#: before, doesn't it?
#: