It is not a clean example of NIH. Got stores its data on disk in the git format.

That aside, NIH is only foolish when the talent falls short of the ambitions. When the talent is up to the challenge, and when there are resources available, there should be no shame in it.

There is a different folly, but we don't yet have a pithy name for it. That is where people are so fearful of being criticised for reinventing the wheel that they twist technology to satisfy requirements it is badly matched to.

Eh, as a developer retention program, to keep the community they have happy by allowing them pet projects that get the OpenBSD name behind them (which gives them at least a bit of marketing), they could do worse.

Maybe. But is it not equally likely that they looked at git(1) and did not like how it would change their workflow and that the license was incompatible with what they would like to see in base?

From what I understand, got works more like svn and cvs in that you have shallow checkouts, so this would match the current workflows better even if it uses git represenation on disk, which would allow people to replicate got repos with git tools is need be.