> There is another point to consider. Nasa funds a lot of NetBSD developers
> including two of our mega-hackers, and if the argument was "just do it
> for us" I would not argue with that. But it's a questionable idea for 1.4 on
> its own merits, and it seems like Nasa would get most of the needed benefit
> if this went in on a branch, and (although this still isn't ideal for
> the project) Nasa would get 100% of their benefits if this just went
> into -current the day after the 1.4 branch.

At least one of the mega-hackers seems to be fond of saying (free
translation by me) "NetBSD is the place, of all places, of doing it
right".

I think that I agree with cgd- I'd like to see a full design proposal- not
an implementation- no matter how studley the implementation is.
Hell- CAM was not warmly invited into NetBSD and *it* has at least two
full ANSI standard approvals to its credit for a 'Design Document'. It was
possibly kept at arms' length by the perception that it also has at least
one questionable implementation. So, if Dr. Bill's work is put into 1.4,
at this late stage, solely on the basis that it's a really good
implementation of a solution of some certain (but undescribed) classes of
problems, then statement "NetBSD is the place where the right things are
done" is frickin' joke (to put on my NYPD Blue accent..).

-matt