by omahpop1.omah.uswest.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 1998 23:21:56 -0000
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:21:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Open Systems Inc." <opsys@open-systems.net>
To: Artur Grabowski <art@stacken.kth.se>
cc: Adrian Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, 
    Alicia da Conceicao <alicia@internetpaper.com>, netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG, 
    FreeBSD advocacy list <FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>, advocacy@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Merging Net/Free/Open-BSD together against Linux
In-Reply-To: <lubvhk2nq4v.fsf@pizza.stacken.kth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981126171031.16281B-100000@pinkfloyd.open-systems.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Im loosing track of what lists this is going to as I cant focus to well
visually being totally stuffed with prime rib and turkey. :-)
So I hope this is not getting out of control and breaking anyones list
charters.

	Here is my thought. As crazy as it may or may not be.
If you want a collaboration between the 3 Free *BSD's why not have a BSD
IETF group. Like the 3 primary architects from each *BSD, the kernel
architect and the VM, and networking architect. Those 3 architects from
each *BSD make up the BSD IETF. Thats 9 members. Those 9 work together to
draw out RFC's the *BSD's can follow should they choose to implement
something. Like threads for instance. They draw up the RFC on how threads
should be done. and *IF* the various *BSD's decide to do threads there
still doing it in their own Free|Net|Open BSD circles but they have to
conform to the standard BSD RFC for threads. 

	To me that seems about as fair, and non ego'ish as possible. 
And the most realistic way for cross collaboration. Im not even sure that
the 3 members from each group can get along. And it might fail miserably.
But in my opinion thats the most feasble way to go. But that means the 3
BSD's have to participate. Im not sure they can get along but IF the 9 can
agree on a final RFC that leaves little room for other ego's. That is the
way it has to be done. So it is VERY important that the 9 members document
WELL THOUGHT OUT, technically sound RFC's. That have as FEW problems and
loopholes as possible.

That's my idea anyway. And I see it as the best way to get the 3 to get
along. But like I said it may also fair miserably. But that is what I
would try.

Chris

"If you aim the gun at your foot and pull the trigger, it's UNIX's job to 
ensure reliable delivery of the bullet to where you aimed the gun (in
this case, Mr. Foot)." -- Terry Lambert, FreeBSD-Hackers mailing list.

===================================| Open Systems FreeBSD Consulting.
   FreeBSD 3.0 is available now!   | Phone: 402-573-9124
-----------------------------------| 3335 N. 103 Plaza #14, Omaha, NE 68134
   FreeBSD: The power to serve!    | E-Mail: opsys@open-systems.net
      http://www.freebsd.org       | Consulting, Network Engineering, Security
===================================| http://open-systems.net

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQENAzPemUsAAAEH/06iF0BU8pMtdLJrxp/lLk3vg9QJCHajsd25gYtR8X1Px1Te
gWU0C4EwMh4seDIgK9bzFmjjlZOEgS9zEgia28xDgeluQjuuMyUFJ58MzRlC2ONC
foYIZsFyIqdjEOCBdfhH5bmgB5/+L5bjDK6lNdqD8OAhtC4Xnc1UxAKq3oUgVD/Z
d5UJXU2xm+f08WwGZIUcbGcaonRC/6Z/5o8YpLVBpcFeLtKW5WwGhEMxl9WDZ3Kb
NZH6bx15WiB2Q/gZQib3ZXhe1xEgRP+p6BnvF364I/To9kMduHpJKU97PH3dU7Mv
CXk2NG3rtOgLTEwLyvtBPqLnbx35E0JnZc0k5YkABRO0JU9wZW4gU3lzdGVtcyA8
b3BzeXNAb3Blbi1zeXN0ZW1zLm5ldD4=
=BBjp
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----