Abrasiveness and a willingness to ruffle the feathers of purveyors of bogus security is a public service.
That said, I find zero things wrong with OpenBSD's work to make LibreSSL. If anyone doesn't like it, I'll offer them their money back.
Leads to a lot of facepalming when you are actually trying to get something done.
The part of the industry that is visible to the general public, and even probably most of the technical community are brands such as those, and you can't trust them. What BSD is doing here is saying, "You know that thing that all of those brands told you [and industry, and the government] is important? It doesn't improve security at all, and so we're going to ridicule the practice so that maybe it will get a stink that travels beyond our tiny realm of influence."
That's more valuable than politeness, because politeness doesn't create a stink, and OpenBSD is not well enough known to effect change without making a stink.
Addendum: To summarize my view of the situation, I think that the reason that a lot of the people that we think of as "good" security people are abrasive is that it's sooo much easier and more profitable to promise security than it is to deliver it. This means that the security industry is overflowing with bullshit and bad information. Since there's so much bullshit, the "good" security people have to be very quick, curt, and categorical about labeling the bullshit since most of us are almost completely incapable of distinguishing bullshit from delicious, nutritious food, and so are all too willing to lap it up. [sorry for the grossness, but I think that this must be what the situation feels like to "good" security people]
[Edit 2:31 PM CDT to add Addendum]
[Edited 2:45 PM CDT for clarity]
I think appearance over function is true ever since politics and advertising were invented.
Security projects need adversarial discussions to keep them honest, but that's a special case.
I think this is more of a correct opinion (to reduce whale blubber) than intentionally pissing people off.