[LightHugger]

the xlibre guy said "no dei" in a fork that is separating from a company embroiled in racist discrimination lawsuits for using DEI to hurt real people.

Is that really involving politics? In a way it is, sure, but again, unlike red hat, IBM and friends, he has pledged not to discriminate against contributors on the basis of politics. Red hat and IBM openly continue to discriminate against contributors and employees on not only the basis of politics but skin color as well. They wield their CoC like a cudgel to get rid of anyone they don't like with no semblance of fair enforcement. It's a series of struggle sessions, man.

So, if you're accusing him of being political, but you're not accusing red hat of being political, you're probably not really accusing him of being political, you're probably just either woefully misinformed or outright racist.

Can you explain why you think someone who pledges not to discriminate against people for politics (while forking from a corp that does, it's not just a random comment, it's part of the reason a fork is needed) is more political than a company that actively discriminates against people for politics and also their skin color?

[ChocolateGod]

> if you're accusing him of being political, but you're not accusing red hat of being political

I equally think being political the other way is also begging for toxicity and division.

e.g. See Godot.

[vidarh]

He invoked controversial right-wing populist slogans in the project README. Yes, that is involving politics, and doing so in a way that is guaranteed to put a lot of people off.

He can be political even in ways people finds offensive, and still have people prepared to still engage with his projects, but he can't do that within the project and expect people to ignore it. It's his choice. He appears to have chosen to double down on being controversial and driving people away from the project.

> why you think someone who pledges not to discriminate against people for politics

The "no DEI" bit is a common "slogan" from people who by many are seen to want to ignore discrimination and pretend it isn't a problem, often because they are seen as quite happy for discrimination to continue. As such, to a lot of people when someone makes a claim like that adjacent to claiming not to want to discriminate, it rings hollow, and in fact often signals to them that the person using that language is likely to either be a racist or is fine with racists.

You don't need to agree with those views. You're free to find that interpretation ridiculous or offensive. But when you try to defend this project, you ought to at least understand that this is how it gets interpreted by a lot of people, and this is why the project is mired in controversy, and will remain mired in controversy as long as the project presents itself in this way.

If his intent seriously is to genuinely not discriminate, then his choice of working is exceedingly poor and shows a lack of understanding of the politics involved.

He has now had plenty of opportunity to read reactions to it, and has still chosen to leave that language in place. To me, that is strongly negative signal - either he doesn't care about the reaction, or is being stubborn and willing to push people away, or he's fine with people seeing him that way. Either way, it's not going to do anything good for this project.

[LightHugger]

> The "no DEI" bit is a common "slogan" from people who by many are seen to want to ignore discrimination and pretend it isn't a problem, often because they are seen as quite happy for discrimination to continue. As such, to a lot of people when someone makes a claim like that adjacent to claiming not to want to discriminate, it rings hollow, and in fact often signals to them that the person using that language is likely to either be a racist or is fine with racists.

This very accurately describes the pro-dei faction, i'm not sure why you'd associate that with the anti-dei faction. You know, active lawsuits and real individual examples of people being harmed by ongoing discrimination are pretty solid evidence. In the end there's only people who are for prejudiced discrimination and people against prejudiced discrimination. I don't care which flavor you have but right now the truth is Xlibre is against it and red hat is for it. Anything else simply isn't aligned with reality.

I guess it just comes down to there being a lot of insane racist people in tech right now who view any opposition to their provable-in-the-courts racism as working against their broader ideological goals and therefore a valid target for attacks on every front. Very odd and unhealthy for open source. Hopefully these people get some of their own medicine.

[vidarh]

It's irrelevant whether we agree on which faction the characteristics applies to. All that is relevant is that bringing this up in the README and elsewhere the way that he has is seen that way and seen as highly political and offensive by a lot of people.

He has chosen to make this into a political project that pushes away a lot of people who see his language as indicative of a dicriminatory attitudes rather than one focused on the technical merits.

That's his choice. I for one won't get involved with a project like that, and clearly that is the case for a lot of other people too.