I am going to send exactly one last message in public about this.
Period.  I've set replies to cgd@netbsd.org.  I would ask that you
refrain from public discussion, and let port-sparc continue to be a
technically-oriented mailing list.  If you feel that you must comment
publically, have a ball; i'm the port-sparc owner and sometime
moderator, and i'm going to let you folks flame all you want about
this issue, until you're all sick of it and until you realize that you
have more important and productive things to do.



Miguel de Icaza said:

> Well, you won't believe why Theo was asked to leave the core group,
> but it was something violent and may forward you a bunch of mail I got
> from Theo about this.  I lost two days talking with Chris about this,
> and they won't admit that it was a mistake from their part and not
> from Theo.  They won't talk about it and won't tell you the thruth, I
> got their original mail to Theo, and believe me, it's not nice at all.

The original message included in the headers the following:

	  the author.

That means that, if you received a copy which wasn't authorized by me
(and none were, except to the original recipients), it was forwarded
to you illegally.  If you forward it to others without my permission,
you are breaking the laws of your country, if you happen to be living
in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention.  (That
includes Mexico and Canada, and a whole bunch of others.)

As for your comments about why it happened, see below.  I've said the
same thing several times before.


> Fortunatelly, after spending those days talking with Chris, they will
> give access to the cvs tree to Theo.   

We have stated several times that we will give Theo access to the CVS
tree if and only if:

	(1) He agrees to not abuse or harass users, developers, or
		potential users or developers of NetBSD, or
		behave in an otherwise unprofessional manner when
		dealing with that same set of people,

	(2) He makes some effort to communicate with 'core', and

	(3) we believe we can trust theo to work in the source tree
		non-disruptively.

All of those are necessary, for somewhat obvious reasons:

The former is necessary, because someone -- ANYONE -- who has NetBSD
CVS tree access is implicitly someone associated with NetBSD, and
therefore reflects on the project.  As noted, Theo _has_ a history of
being overbearing, abusive, and downright obscene in communications
with the class of people mentioned above, and _many_ complaints about
him have been received by various 'core' members over time.

The second is important, because if Theo is to have CVS tree access,
then he _must_ have a good working relationship with 'core'.  That is
obvious.

The latter is vital; if he can't be trusted to work non-disruptively
in the source tree, well, then him having source tree access is a
very, very big lose.  I'm not concerned about this; I believe that
Theo is honest, and good for his word once he commits to it.
(However, this belief is tempered by the fact that he's apparently
forwarded e-mail that i sent illegally, without my consnet.)


> 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.

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.

It was decided (by a unanimous vote of the members of 'core',
excluding theo) that we needed to at least remove Theo from 'core,'
and thus publically indicate that he was no longer an 'official'
representative of the NetBSD project.  There was a slight problem: we
expected him to be _quite_ angry with us for our action.  We therefore 
thought it necessary to take what i would term "hostile employee"
precautions -- we turned off his account on the various NetBSD
development machines on which he had accounts, changed the root
passwords, etc.

Since his account was disabled, Theo has:

	(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

	(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 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.


> Most of them are copyrighted, and
> Chris, for instance, insisted on not making them public: he may have
> some reason.  Fact: he was not telling the truth.

"BZZZ!  TRY AGAIN!"

I have:

	(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.)

	(2) gone far out of my way, in many instances, to try to
		explain what was going on, the reasoning behind
		it, and the hopeful outcomes.  Most of that was in
		private mail.

	(3) gone far out of my way, at several times, to understand
		the position from which you and others (including
		Theo; i've spent over two hours on the phone with
		him discussing this matter) are speaking.


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.

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.


Anyway, that's it from me on this topic.  "Flame away!"  8-)

If anybody wants to discuss this with me or 'core' in private mail,
feel free to send it.  However, at this point, i think you're going to
have a relatively hard time convincing me that i'm asking for too
_much_.



later,

chris