This shown-below 'page' -- like their Web site in general -- also stopped being a Web page; it's a JavaScript "app" now, instead (they don't care about accessibility or disabled people, but they say "DEI" a lot):

Summary: The Linux Foundation is gradually becoming a shadow of Microsoft, just like the Open Source Initiative, where most of the money comes from Microsoft and the official blog promotes Microsoft, its proprietary software, and Microsoft's side in a class action lawsuit over GPL violations (with 9 billion dollars in damages at stake). So it all started with one Board member after the "Microsoft loves Linux" PR charade (money passed to Jim Zemlin, who gives talks at Microsoft and is 'married' to Microsoft^*); then it became two (more money paid for the second seat; the Linux Foundation openly advertises that Board seats are up for sale with upper bound of 2) and now it's three through the loophole (subsidiary to evade membership limits being exceeded, just like at the OSI and Redmonk). It's like a completely covert takeover in slow motion and the "AT-LARGE DIRECTOR" is also a Microsoft employee (all 3 are female, so talking about this hostile act of entryism will get baited as being sexist^**); Mr. Mason is no longer there, so no geeks or Linux developers left in the Board (it's just 'suits' and corporate actors). As a reminder, Microsoft is also in the Technical Advisory Board of the Linux Foundation and its current Board members keep pushing for Linux to be outsourced to Microsoft's GitHub despite being fiercely anti-GPL (the licence of Linux), totally proprietary, and having already had two rounds of layoffs this year [1, 2]. It's not like Microsoft is even the sole problem in that board^***.

____ ^* The Foundation "is not just a mess but an actively harmful activity," an associate note, "apparently by Zemlin's design" (his wife is professionally connected to Microsoft and nobody talks about this glaring conflict of interest and even elaborate fraud [1, 2, 3])

^** This could of course be a coincidence rather than a moral shield.

^*** An associate wanted to moreover "point out that LF [the Foundation] has become an organisation that represents its members' interests within the kernel rather than actually promoting and advancing Linux in the world." A few years ago the OSI's cofounder Bruce Perens, who was also the second Debian Project Leader (the first one, the founder of Debian, was the LF's first CTO), said that the “Linux Foundation is an infringer's club.” (Alluding to the GPL)

Judging by the companies shown above, the LF is GPL-hostile (it has not chosen this licence for any project for ages) and it ought to be clear that it had become a GPL infringers' club due to companies that wanted copyleft to die (but could not change the licence of Linux, only pressure Linus Torvalds to reject GPLv3 after a campaign of lobbying). "Many of the board members represent Microsoft partners," the associate adds, "so the damage from Microsoft is more than just the three moles."