But OpenBSD does it on a six month basis. I am wondering if it is more the degree of organization and planning rather than the size of the project.

I seriously doubt that OpenBSD has as many packages, with as much documentation, localization, on as many platforms as debian does. Debian is HUGE; and don't you forget the million other more specialized debianish distros that feed off of it.

I think you are right, but still there is a discipline that openbsd uses that others might find useful. Theo gave a talk about their engineering release process that sounded scalable.

This is correct. They also manage the core of the OS without all the nasty package interdependencies you get with Debian.

Debian does too much. That is the issue if you ask me.

Debian only "does too much" if what you want from an OS is a simple platform on which to build your own bespoke solution. The BSD operating systems, and OpenBSD in particular, abdicate a lot more responsibility for actual system management and application deployment to the sysadmin, while Debian provides opinionated defaults (in the form of package install layouts and configuration styles) that work for most environments.

Both have their place, but for general-purpose servers, I find Debian to be a much more productive system on top of which to build solutions. For firewalls, embedded storage devices, or load balancers, on the other hand, I still reach for a recent OpenBSD install disk, because the smaller footprint and security hardening have real advantages for systems running such a limited set of services.