Very Computer

The second CFV for the comp.unix.bsd.openbsd newsgroups was recently posted
to comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc; the first one was also posted to
comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.announce.

These groups were posted to in addition to the groups listed in the CFV,
without approval or knowledge of the group proponents or of the OpenBSD
organization in general.

As far as we can tell, the additional posting was requested by David
Lawrence; we do not know what his reasoning for this was.

Regardless, we believe that it is in the best interest of the NetBSD
Community to refrain from simply voting "NO" in response to the CFV.  It
is common, for instance, to find OpenBSD developers reading and posting
to the NetBSD newsgroups for lack of a better forum, often to the chagrin
of the NetBSD Community.  Any apparent, organized, series of "NO" votes
from the NetBSD Community will also damage the credibility of all concerned,
something which noone can afford to do.

We feel that the NetBSD Community should carefully consider these
and other potential outcomes before voting in the OpenBSD CFV.  By all
means, vote as you personally see fit-- we are not advocating you vote
"YES", just that noone votes "NO" simply out of some misguided sense of
animosity.  There is also the "ABSTAIN" option for those that wish to
use it.

--
Jason Downs

                             http://www.*y.org/
               Little.  Yellow.  Secure.  http://www.veryComputer.com/

cjs
--

Internet Portal Services, Inc.     Through infinite myst, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC  (604) 257-9400      In code possess'd of invisible folly.

   The only unfortunate thing about
   the entire situation is that no one noticed the newsgroups which should
   have obviously been included in the original RFD crossposting until later
   on in the process.

These are the issues that caused the fuss:

1) David Lawrence specifically requested that the CFV postings be sent
   to the netbsd newsgroups, when the RFD postings had not.

2) The CFV (as written by a proponent) does not list the netbsd groups
   as areas where the articles are cross-posted

3) The proponents were not consulted or informed of these changes.  And
   I guess that is also the reason for (2) above

Those three irregularities are all anyone was really worried about.
Nothing more.  Not really very important issues compared to the larger
issue of people voting `for the improvement of usenet' (cough, cough ;-)

Really, I've nothing more to say about it.  It's that simple.
--

www.OpenBSD.org -- We're fixing security problems so you can sleep at night.