Message-Id: <9505220350.AA03784@theos.com>
To: "Charles M. Hannum" <mycroft@ai.mit.edu>
Cc: deraadt@theos.com, Chris_G_Demetriou@lagavulin.pdl.cs.cmu.edu,
        core@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: back 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 21 May 1995 23:36:58 EDT."
             <199505220336.XAA18781@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
Date: Sun, 21 May 1995 21:50:46 -0600
From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@theos.com>

>    this has bothered me a fair bit. the mail suggests that i'm supposed
>    to communicate with the core group, yet when i try to, i get nothing
>    in return.
> 
> That's *not* true.  What you got was a set of questions from Chris,
> that I, among others, have been waiting to see answered.  Your
> reluctance to answer them is not a step in the right direction.

first, you suggest that you speak for the others as well. this is the
first time that i have heard anything of the kind -- i was led to
believe that what Chris posted was what Chris thought, and that he
felt others would speak up. i know you guys have archives -- go read
the mail (i just double checked).

i do not feel that sending mail to core and receiving mail back from
one person -- who expresses to me that he wishes others had something
public to say -- is a good indication of core communicating with me.

>    you asked if i would communicate with core -- as has been seen i have
>    been trying. i'm somewhat dissapointed at the little that i have
>    gotten.
> 
> What, precisely, did you expect?  Chris dealt with all of my concerns
> at that point.  There is no need for each of us to reply to your mail;
> if we have differing opinions, then we will discuss them amongst
> ourselves.

Chris has expressed to me, a few times, his dissapointment that noone
else has anything public to say on the matter.  Chris, do you want to
confirm this? i expressed my dissapointment to Chris as well.

> Provided that it's clear that you in no way speak for the NetBSD
> project, and disregarding libel for the moment, it is none of our
> concern what you say to people privately.  However, I will remind you
> that your haste to say `what [you] wanted to', often including
> vitriolic flames, is part of what got us to this point to being with.

Charles, i feel your answer to be a rather virtiolic flame.

i'm somewhat unhappy to hear you say what you are saying, or the tone
you use.  you are not being nice.  i do not understand what you expect
to gain from saying things as you have.