THIS is a notoriously difficult and at times unsettling topic, not only in the Free/Open Source software (FOSS) community but in just about every facet of life and business, including law firms (we write a lot about these). We've mostly alluded to this in editorial comments in our daily links; whenever we write an article about it there's a risk someone will quote-mine, take something out of context, or not properly read what's written as a whole (sometimes intentionally, just to make a mountain out of a molehill). We kindly suggest reading the whole post before commenting. The only thing we 'bash' is corporations and greed; it's a smokescreen.
"We're very much focused on the real issues, notably things such as patent law, corporate corruption, FOSS affairs, entryism and oftentimes politics (depending on the channel)."Our 24/7 IRC community has males, females, gay people, trans people etc. We've rarely encountered any issues associated with that, e.g. people being attacked for orientation, identity, nationality etc. The logs are all public, so it's not a secret. We're very much focused on the real issues, notably things such as patent law, corporate corruption, FOSS affairs, entryism and oftentimes politics (depending on the channel).
Months ago we wrote about the Linux Foundation's posturing along the lines of "Diversity and Inclusion" and we mentioned that again earlier this month; it's just another one of their marketing aspects, which resembles what Microsoft does. It is about corporate image or brand power. It's not genuine concern or care.
"...companies like Microsoft have severe issues in that regard and this is why they can't stop talking about it, in an effort to drown out the signal (facts)."Always be careful to distinguish; there are tolerance opportunists; they tend to be a lot louder than those who are passively if not silently tolerant. Those who have nothing to cover up don't need to googlebomb the Web with puff pieces about how they champion "Diversity and Inclusion"; companies like Microsoft have severe issues in that regard -- to the point of facing loads of lawsuits -- and this is why they can't stop talking about it, in an effort to drown out the signal (facts). They're concerned people might come across legal documents and news reports about racism, sexism, homophobia etc. Those are very prevalent there. That's the road to brain drain. That can harm sales through boycotts.
Regarding the Linux Foundation, days ago we learned there was an incident at its event. The community, i.e. actual FOSS people (those raided by software monopolies with their openwashing staffers and defectors) as opposed to marketing staffers of the Foundation, belatedly strikes back. We are still trying to get the pertinent details and will hopefully report soon. And yes, there's a legitimate diversity angle to it. The Foundation likes to hide behind the cover or the curtain of ethics, morality etc. Any criticism of the Foundation or its sponsors (i.e. patrons) can be spun as an unacceptable act which they dub "toxic". They classify particular elements of the community "toxic" and attempt to marginalise these, never mind the merits of their concern/s. The Foundation, disguising itself as a "nonprofit", is quite suitable for such a function; it's a front or a shield, protecting the image of corporations whose brands the Foundation exists to promote.
Sadly for the Foundation, for all its talks (and Web pages) of tolerance, its patrons are very much intolerant. They're intolerant in various ways and it's not hard to research the subject (evidence is overwhelming). The closest example we can think of is the Gates Foundation, which helps Microsoft or more specifically Bill Gates label critics of criminal activities as bashers of a charity, 'sick' people who are 'jealous' of benevolent philanthropists. It's not a novel trick. Torvalds is a 'sick' man for calling bullshit code "bullshit", but Gates is a Saint for demanding a "Jihad" against Linux. ⬆