[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.