Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!enews.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!not-for-mail
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: followup from censored port-i386@Netbsd.ORG
Date: 3 Jul 1996 19:26:45 -0400
Organization: Panix
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4revjl$fva@panix2.panix.com>
References: <DERAADT.96Jun23070919@zeus.theos.com> <DERAADT.96Jun24082701@zeus.theos.com> <x7dpw6doi0t.fsf@glacier.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
In article <x7dpw6doi0t.fsf@glacier.MIT.EDU>,
Greg Hudson <ghudson@glacier.mit.edu> wrote:
>[Once again, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc elided from the newsgroups
>line at Jordan's request.]
>
>As usual, I'd like to clear up some possible misconceptions. Of
>course, you refer to "reading between the lines," which suggests that
>you think I (or someone else, since you don't mention my name) might
>be lying, but that's difficult to counter without a specific
>allegation.
>
>> Hmm, core isn't saying anything. But some random people are. Oh,
>> they talk with core every day, as friends. Oh, wait, maybe they are
>> speaking FOR CORE! Maybe the message they carry is simply core's
>> message? Perhaps, perhaps not. You decide.
>
>On one occasion I was asked by Jason to clear up the factual mess
>about which messages were dropped from port-i386 (and I stated that
>the information in question came from him). Other than that, no, I'm
>not speaking on core's behalf. It's just that none of them are
>interested in getting involved in a usenet flame war, and I am.
>
>> Did some of these people not `sign' a NetBSD document that says they
>> must BEHAVE? The document which I refused to sign because initially
>> you wanted _only_ me to sign it? The document talked about in
>> coremail?
>
>I haven't signed anything related to NetBSD, nor do I know of any
>"program whereby they control their developers' actions, including
>declaring what they may or may not say in private mail." And, having
>read coremail, I don't actually recall anyone asking you to sign a
>paper document, at least until it got to the point where you wanted
>everyone else to agree to the same things you did.
Let me clear up a substantial misconception on two parts here, before it starts
another flame war.
A) Theo was asked to sign a "NetBSD developer's agreement" in order
to get CVS access to the source tree. I don't know what the
exact chronological order was, but it was mentioned to a number
of other NetBSD developers and prospective NetBSD developers that
when such a document had been written, they'd need to sign it as
well. In fact, for several months *nobody* got new NetBSD
developers' accounts because it took so long to get the agreement
written; this was inconvenient for everyone involved.
1) *NOBODY* new got access to the source tree while the
agreement was being written. Not Theo, not John Kohl,
not any of the other people who were waiting.
B) The agreement wasn't ready until the winter Usenix, or just before;
JT produced a nicely formatted sample of such, with a good deal
of fanfare, in the brewpub we were all at one night. A few people
signed it and got new developers' accounts; I *know* that it was
mentioned that everyone would probably need to sign it eventually,
but I have a fairly clear memory that JT only had two or three
copies with him at the time, which certainly didn't make it
practical to do it then and there.
But that agreement didn't even _exist_ before that, and Greg wasn't there,
so I'm not surprised that he doesn't know about it. I am not one to attribute
to malice what can reasonably be attributed to accident; I suspect that nobody
in core has had the free time to chase down the owners of all of the existing
developers' accounts and get them to sign it.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM
"Gee, if your knee jerks any harder you're going to kick yourself in the head."
-- Barry Sherman