> On 08/13/10 13:46, disgrun tled-developers wrote:
>
>> Just to keep the mortals in the loop,
>>
>> This date to day, on Tuesday the 13th of August 2002, Theo had another fit
>> and kicked out all the OpenBSD developers for a couple of days or so:
>>
>>
>>> Subject: Re: dealing with security issues when Theo is away
>>> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:25:08 -0600
>>> From: Theo de Raadt<deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
>>>
>>> None of this that you posted changes a single thing.
>>>
>>> I DID say who was responsible.
>>>
>>> Those people were not contacted.
>>>
>>> It seems you still don't understand the level of not caring that
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> I am taking a holiday next week. For that time, I think cvs will be
>>> turned off.
>>>
>>> Good god, reading even further, you are so fucking out of touch.
>>> There are only 3 machines on at my house at the moment, and you start
>>> talking about OTHER machines?
>>>
>>> NOONE PHONED ME.
>>>
>> And:
>>
>>
>>> Subject: And
>>> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:35:30 -0600
>>> From: Theo de Raadt<deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
>>>
>>> If I don't get answers from the evasive developers soon, I am going to
>>> take this to misc, and I will be very open with naming names.
>>>
>>> This is now days of people trying to hide from what happened.
>>>
>> ------ snip ---- snip ----
>>
>> So Theo shut down all machines in his basement and none of the developers
>> had any access to the work they doing.
>>
>> I'd like to remind people that at this point we lost valuable developers
>> like Niels Provos which turns out the be one of the few who fully understood
>> crypto and the security improvements like separation of privileges. Not to
>> forget Hugh, Aaron and a few others.... Others had their account re-enabled
>> after groveling. And all that over a misunderstanding that is to blame to
>> the fact that Theo had no written procedures on how to deal with 'issues'.
>> When Theo is away, you just 'wing it'.
>>
>> Today, we see the same shit all over again... Theo just announced the
>> following:
>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>>
>>> To:
hackers@cvs.openbsd.org
>>> Subject: Tree locked
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:03:05 -0600
>>> From: Theo de Raadt<deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
>>>
>>> I am locking all the trees until the development community decides
>>> how future releases will be done.
>>>
>>> Yes, we all have to do our part. We write code, and some people go
>>> further by building, and some people go even further by building
>>> during the release cycle.
>>>
>>> But everyone also has to test, or we will ship crap. Yet on random
>>> releases this process totally falls over, and we end up shipping crap.
>>>
>>> Three architectures did not have one of their boot methods checked --
>>> yes, they are listed in the TESTS file! -- and the bugs were found
>>> very very late in the process. Basically 1 week after the TEST file
>>> went up.
>>>
>>> pkg_add turns out to have a major bug which would have been spotted if
>>> just a few other people had tested another line item in the TESTS
>>> file.
>>>
>>> That is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> I cannot accept all this pressure being on me; I want recognition that
>>> all the people who thus far have accused me for not being clear are
>>> wrong.
>>> we have developers in the group who cannot by themselves recognize --
>>> even ANTICIPATE -- that we are going into the same 6-month release
>>> cycle, EVERY feb/march, and EVERY august/sept, and then participate to
>>> identify the 10 last stupid bugs that we should fix. Is there that
>>> little desire to ship a good release?
>>>
>>> It will not be fixed by sending more mails out. I did send out mails
>>> and they were ignored. Communication coming from me is not the
>>> problem; it is clear that developers are NOT LISTENING.
>>>
>>> The problem is not new developers either. Anyone accusing them has
>>> got it all wrong. New developers are supposed to learn the ropes from
>>> old developers, and it is the old developers who are not doing their
>>> part. Yes, that means you.
>>>
>>> 31 people tested, meaning 140 people did not. Any suggestions for
>>> people who have idled out and don't want to be involved any more?
>>>
>>> When we ship a crap release, it is not my fault. It is YOUR fault.
>>>
>>> So tell me how we are going to fix this. Don't reply just to me.
>>>
>>> As I said, I will not accept responsibility for what went wrong here.
>>> And if anyone wants their account disabled, please accuse me just once
>>> more.
>>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>> And he picks on a few individuals:
>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>>
>>> To:
hackers@cvs.openbsd.org
>>> Subject: Testing
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:39:12 -0600
>>> From: Theo de Raadt<deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
>>>
>>> I would like to see some tests for the upcoming release from Henning.
>>>
>>> I hope this communication is clear enough.
>>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>>
>>> To:
henning@cvs.openbsd.org
>>> cc:
hackers@cvs.openbsd.org
>>> Subject: Apology
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:44:45 -0600
>>> From: Theo de Raadt<deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
>>>
>>> I find myself unable to take back-talk from people discussing testing
>>> and then accusing me of having not done my job asking for testing,
>>> when they did not do their job. You did zero tests (everyone can
>>> check ~jsing/TESTS) over the 3 week period, yet you feel you can
>>> lecture me on why the testing procedure failed.
>>>
>>> I will enable your account when you find the time to apologize for
>>> your statements.
>>>
>>> I hope this mail is clear enough.
>>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>> And now he comes up with this brilliant gem:
>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>>
>>> To:
hackers@cvs.openbsd.org
>>> Subject: Testing idea
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:16:01 -0600
>>> From: Theo de Raadt<deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
>>>
>>> How is this for a testing idea:
>>>
>>> - if you are part of the release build process (ie. building binaries
>>> for the release), all is good
>>>
>>> - if you work hard on finding and fixing a bug found during the
>>> release / testing process, all is good.
>>>
>>> - if your name is in the TESTS file, all is good
>>>
>>> - if you send me a mail describing circumstances that led you to not
>>> be able to test, all is good
>>>
>>> Otherwise, on the day the CDRs go to the plant your account will be
>>>
>> disabled
>>
>>> 'due to inactivitity'.
>>>
>>> Is that where we should go?
>>>
>> ----- snip ---- snip ----
>>
>> Yes Theo, let's just go that road and you'll find yourself again in a same
>> spot as 8 years ago: wondering why everybody started bailing out on you.
>>
>> Not all of us accept not that you are doing the right thing, so we'll find
>> another sand box to play in.
>>
>> Enough of the bullshit... when is this project grow up and be run by a team
>> that is accountable (voted for?) and not a guy sitting in his livingroom in
>> his underwear ranting on ICB?
>>
>> H.
