> Then you become the steward of the project and continue forward. ... The answer was to fix the perceived problems in OpenSSL and make it as solid as it can be. It's splitting talent and resources unnecessarily.

But that is what the fork is, OpenSSL with new stewards. What is your objection? That they are using a different name? That they decided to remove certain platforms which were a maintenance burden? That FIPS is broken by design and therefore isn't a priority? I imagine the OpenSSL team disagrees with the LibreSSL team on all of these issues. The only option was a fork.

> Right now, native libressl only works on bsd's, when openssl codebase works on many os's. There are ports being made, which will introduce more bugs.

One step backwards, two steps forward.