> Open Source is a global effort, but current political situation makes collaboration hard and trust difficult to earn. Especially when development is not transparent and open.

I find this an odd statement. I would understand an explanation that forking was chosen on ideological grounds, but, how is development "not transparent and open" in an open source project? Sounds a bit contradictory. Plus doesn't the fact that a fully functioning fork was performed effortlessly show that the project was indeed truly transparent and open?

Open source doesn't necessarily mean the development is open and transparent. For example, sqlite is open source, but the development process isn't very open. Development is done entirely by the sqlite team.

> how is development "not transparent and open" in an open source project?

Please have a look at how Android is developed, and how each new version is released. It's far from the only example of "open source but closed development process".

Never mind "shared source" like QNX where people can pass through hoops to view source, but code is not open in the libre sense.

> how is development "not transparent and open" in an open source project?

Im guessing cathedral rather than bazaar?