[0] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/-/merge_requests...
[1] https://github.com/X11Libre/xserver/commits/xlibre/prepare/
My general impression (quite possibly incorrect) was that X.Org Server is largely treated as “done”, making only bugfixes and such these days.
> That fork was necessary since toxic elements within Xorg projects, moles from certian big corp are boycotting any substantial work on Xorg, in order to destroy the project, to elimitate competition of their own products. (classic "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics)
> This is an independent project, not at all affiliated with BigTech or any of their subsidiaries or tax evasion tools, nor any political activists groups, state actors, etc. It's explicitly free of any "DEI" or similar discriminatory policies. Anybody who's treating others nicely is welcomed.
And the message sent is disastrous. Personally I am part of people who have big advantages with actual DEI policy, but I am firmly against that, because I want to be employed for my skills, not because I fit a quota or anything like that.
Every policy is targeted discrimination for or against certain groups of individuals (and you can invert the group and make the same policy switch from "for" to "against".)
The question is what group of individuals.
Lol are you talking about "discrimination" on the basis of task-relevant skills?
Until 20 years ago, nobody in OS cared who you were IRL, your gender, ethnicity etc. In many cases they didn't even know, plenty people only contributed under pseudonyms. Hard to believe for people who only joined the show after social media had become pretty much mandatory, and the "I don't care who you are IRL"-crowd got drowned out by "who you are IRL is the most important thing, not what you contribute"-crowd.
So was it only white boys interested?
True, maybe, nobody cared. But it was all white boys, with very few exceptions, when I started.
I think we need diversity. Am I wrong?
Back then my field had plenty women and asians, I also knew a bunch of middle easterners (mostly iranians, but that's probably by accident). They got into the field because they were interested in it, so they were good at it!
Nowadays many people (including the despised white boys) enter the field because they think it's an easy way to make money, not because they're interested in it. But at least with the white boys, employers are still allowed to filter based on interest and ability. They can't filter out "oppressed identity havers" on the basis of interest or ability, who as a result are just as bad as nepotism hires -- some are good, most aren't.
What we should have focused on for the last 20 years was reducing nepotism, instead we created a new type of nepotism based on identity. In traditional nepotism you need an uncle who is friends with the boss, here you just need the skin color that is friends the boss of your (boss's)^n boss.
> I think we need diversity. Am I wrong?
There are definitely some circumstances where identity and cultural background can be very job-relevant -- for example for understanding your customers.
But that's pretty limited. Does your skin color or genitals have an effect on what kind of networking problems you can solve? The only reason we haven't proven the Riemann hypothesis yet is because we forgot to hire a Manchu-Bantu queer Muslim with ovotesticular syndrome and vitiligo? I don't think so.
Even if you believe that, this perceived need does not justify identity-based discrimination. Discrimination creates resentment.
Actual, legally enforced, culturally glorified discrimination (which corporate america currently has against white and asian men, unless they're nepotism hires) creates more resentment than does the ethereal, unfalsifiable, hypothetical discrimination that you assume to exist based on outcome disparities, even though companies are aggressively punished for any actual such discrimination (against anyone besides white and asian men).
The main unfairness in corporate America is nepotism. If you fight that, you'll automatically fight more white men than members of other identity groups. The main unfairness in America in general is poverty. If you fight poverty you'll automatically help more minorities. The main beneficiaries of DEI are "oppressed identity havers" from high income backgrounds. DEI reinforces/extends nepotism and income inequality instead of fighting it.