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?