I'd argue LibreSSL is already doing a better job because they are doing things that should have happened ages ago. Files from 1998 that were supposed to be rem

I'd argue LibreSSL is already doing a better job because they are doing things that should have happened ages ago. Files from 1998 that were supposed to be removed when 1.0 was released? Should've been gone years ago. Code interspersed with platform specific hacks say for VMS(!?!?!? why is this even supported still) that needs to go. Having a simple core that has platform shims on top is a good thing. Ripping out the openssl NIH memcpy/etc... is a good thing. Sometimes the only way forward is to step back and take a better path. Everyone here is annoyed that we likely are throwing good money after bad. If the openssl developers don't practice good software engineering as it is, money won't change that. This is the fundamental worry. I'm skeptical this will result in anything useful. If the years upon years of technical debt in this project aren't cleaned up like libressl has done, I don't see much chance of things improving substantially.