You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> on 2022/05/04 18:05:25 UTC
A way to keep the name
Hi, all.
We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache Nation
(defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs? Such
a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
England to describe a nominal rent.
The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
made available to members of the Apache Nation:
- travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
- advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
- assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
- a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
- internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just tossed
into the ring. Please suggest them.
This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative, as
we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people of
the Apache Nation.
a
--
Andrew Wetmore
Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
<div></div><div>That was someone’s opinion on a list. That is not official.
<br/>
<br/>Sent from my iPhone
<br/>
<br/>> On May 6, 2022, at 12:14 PM, me <me@emangini.com> wrote:
<br/>>
<br/>> Our legal folks have responded (quickly!).
<br/>>
<br/>> I’m quoting the recommendation here:
<br/>>
<br/>> If someone wants to take ASF to court over this, we can
<br/>> worry about it, then. Until then, there isn't really anything we can do
<br/>> about it other than try to be as benign as possible toward those people
<br/>> who might consider such litigation.
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> Benign as possible can be read in a number of different ways, depending on how we are defining the scope (federally recognized Apache nations, all Apache nations, all indigenous tribes, etc.)
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> 1.) (Extreme 1) Do nothing. Without a registered complaint from the tribe, this is analogous to an “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, approach”.
<br/>>
<br/>> PRO: We don’t bring attention to a problem by communicating a scenario
<br/>>
<br/>> CON: There has been communicated social impact complaints that aren’t being addressed. There is a latent risk.
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> 2.) (Extreme 2) Do everything. Just change the name and the license proactively. This is a “full speed ahead” proactive effort.
<br/>>
<br/>> PRO: This removes any and all risk in perpetuity
<br/>>
<br/>> CON: The level of effort is substantial, and it may exceed social responsibility.
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> 3.) Middle ground. Not sure what that is.
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> Cheers!
<br/>>
<br/>> Ed
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> From: Owen Rubel <orubel@gmail.com>
<br/>> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>
<br/>> Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
<br/>> To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>
<br/>> Subject: Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
<br/>>
<br/>> Bravo. Brilliant.
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> Owen Rubel
<br/>> orubel@gmail.com
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me <me@emangini.com> wrote:
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
<br/>>>
<br/>>> I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to
<br/>>> understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a better
<br/>>> understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from us,
<br/>>> through litigation?”
<br/>>>
<br/>>> My thought process is the following:
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst
<br/>>> case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on any
<br/>>> journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to define
<br/>>> the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set conversations
<br/>>> going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the defined
<br/>>> risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning
<br/>>> strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
<br/>>>
<br/>>> —
<br/>>>
<br/>>> That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have to
<br/>>> consider.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question
<br/>>> inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a gun
<br/>>> to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those
<br/>>> involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think it’s
<br/>>> something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is approached
<br/>>> with care.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture (nothing
<br/>>> exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before
<br/>>> performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether). At
<br/>>> the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may induce
<br/>>> conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you have a
<br/>>> resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to
<br/>>> research to compile some facts?)
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>> From: me <me@emangini.com>
<br/>>> Reply: me <me@emangini.com>
<br/>>> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
<br/>>> To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <
<br/>>> orubel@gmail.com>
<br/>>> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Owen,
<br/>>>
<br/>>> You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
<br/>>> (Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to
<br/>>> better understand your position.)
<br/>>>
<br/>>> 1.) Business Risk.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people.
<br/>>> Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the
<br/>>> claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in the
<br/>>> United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and license.
<br/>>> It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that risk.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand
<br/>>> wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it further.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source Business,
<br/>>> but we create products that are consumed.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially
<br/>>> or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or
<br/>>> dismissal of complaints should they arise.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> 2.) Social Impact.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure to
<br/>>> differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is to
<br/>>> demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
<br/>>> (NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the
<br/>>> articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was
<br/>>> derived from recognizing current social climate.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor:
<br/>>> “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
<br/>>> socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation
<br/>>> or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> —
<br/>>>
<br/>>> To your point about jumping the gun:
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived
<br/>>> categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there had
<br/>>> been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t. Does
<br/>>> that matter?
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out
<br/>>> endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
<br/>>>
<br/>>> There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to
<br/>>> rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure
<br/>>> that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of
<br/>>> risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my involvement.)
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>> From: Owen Rubel <orubel@gmail.com>
<br/>>> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>
<br/>>> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
<br/>>> To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org>
<br/>>> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
<br/>>>
<br/>>> This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or
<br/>>> reached
<br/>>> out?
<br/>>>
<br/>>> You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
<br/>>> will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits
<br/>>> off
<br/>>> the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
<br/>>> no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
<br/>>>
<br/>>> Owen Rubel
<br/>>> orubel@gmail.com
<br/>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>>> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <cottage14@gmail.com>
<br/>>> wrote:
<br/>>>
<br/>>>> Hi, all.
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of
<br/>>> our
<br/>>>> foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
<br/>>>> back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
<br/>>> Nation
<br/>>>> (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
<br/>>>> perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
<br/>>> Such
<br/>>>> a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much
<br/>>> more
<br/>>>> useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
<br/>>>> England to describe a nominal rent.
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
<br/>>>> made available to members of the Apache Nation:
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
<br/>>>> - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
<br/>>>> - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical
<br/>>> infrastructure
<br/>>>> or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the
<br/>>> package:
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
<br/>>>> - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
<br/>>> tossed
<br/>>>> into the ring. Please suggest them.
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
<br/>>> as
<br/>>>> we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
<br/>>> of
<br/>>>> the Apache Nation.
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> a
<br/>>>> --
<br/>>>> Andrew Wetmore
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>> Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
<br/>>>> Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
<br/>>>>
<br/>>>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>---------------------------------------------------------------------
<br/>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
<br/>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
<br/>
<br/></div>
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>.
That was someone’s opinion on a list. That is not official.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 6, 2022, at 12:14 PM, me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> Our legal folks have responded (quickly!).
>
> I’m quoting the recommendation here:
>
> If someone wants to take ASF to court over this, we can
> worry about it, then. Until then, there isn't really anything we can do
> about it other than try to be as benign as possible toward those people
> who might consider such litigation.
>
>
> Benign as possible can be read in a number of different ways, depending on how we are defining the scope (federally recognized Apache nations, all Apache nations, all indigenous tribes, etc.)
>
>
>
> 1.) (Extreme 1) Do nothing. Without a registered complaint from the tribe, this is analogous to an “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, approach”.
>
> PRO: We don’t bring attention to a problem by communicating a scenario
>
> CON: There has been communicated social impact complaints that aren’t being addressed. There is a latent risk.
>
>
>
> 2.) (Extreme 2) Do everything. Just change the name and the license proactively. This is a “full speed ahead” proactive effort.
>
> PRO: This removes any and all risk in perpetuity
>
> CON: The level of effort is substantial, and it may exceed social responsibility.
>
>
>
> 3.) Middle ground. Not sure what that is.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
>
> Bravo. Brilliant.
>
>
> Owen Rubel
> orubel@gmail.com
>
>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>>
>> Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
>>
>> I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to
>> understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a better
>> understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from us,
>> through litigation?”
>>
>> My thought process is the following:
>>
>> Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst
>> case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on any
>> journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to define
>> the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
>>
>> I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set conversations
>> going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the defined
>> risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning
>> strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
>>
>> —
>>
>> That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have to
>> consider.
>>
>> Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question
>> inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a gun
>> to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those
>> involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think it’s
>> something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is approached
>> with care.
>>
>> It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture (nothing
>> exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before
>> performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether). At
>> the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may induce
>> conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
>>
>> Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you have a
>> resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to
>> research to compile some facts?)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: me <me...@emangini.com>
>> Reply: me <me...@emangini.com>
>> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
>> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <
>> orubel@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>>
>> Owen,
>>
>> You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
>> (Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to
>> better understand your position.)
>>
>> 1.) Business Risk.
>>
>> Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people.
>> Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the
>> claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in the
>> United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and license.
>> It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that risk.
>>
>> This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand
>> wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it further.
>>
>> Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source Business,
>> but we create products that are consumed.
>>
>> Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially
>> or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or
>> dismissal of complaints should they arise.
>>
>> 2.) Social Impact.
>>
>> There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure to
>> differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is to
>> demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
>> (NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the
>> articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was
>> derived from recognizing current social climate.
>>
>> Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor:
>> “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
>>
>> Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
>> socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation
>> or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
>>
>> —
>>
>> To your point about jumping the gun:
>>
>> Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived
>> categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there had
>> been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t. Does
>> that matter?
>>
>> Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out
>> endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
>>
>> There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to
>> rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure
>> that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of
>> risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my involvement.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
>> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
>> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
>> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>>
>> This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
>>
>> Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or
>> reached
>> out?
>>
>> You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
>> will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
>>
>> Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits
>> off
>> the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
>>
>> This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
>> no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
>>
>> Owen Rubel
>> orubel@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, all.
>>>
>>> We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of
>> our
>>> foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
>>> back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
>>>
>>> What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
>> Nation
>>> (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
>>> perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
>> Such
>>> a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much
>> more
>>> useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
>>> England to describe a nominal rent.
>>>
>>> The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
>>> made available to members of the Apache Nation:
>>>
>>> - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
>>> - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
>>> - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical
>> infrastructure
>>> or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
>>>
>>> On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the
>> package:
>>>
>>> - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
>>> - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
>>>
>>> Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
>> tossed
>>> into the ring. Please suggest them.
>>>
>>> This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
>> as
>>> we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
>> of
>>> the Apache Nation.
>>>
>>> a
>>> --
>>> Andrew Wetmore
>>>
>>> Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
>>> Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by Walter Cameron <wa...@waltercameron.com>.
> It might be worth doing some internal
> research on Apache culture (nothing
> exhaustive, but enough for us to understand
> tribal values) before performing outreach (or
> in the extreme, from performing it
> altogether). At the very least this can help us
> navigate away from areas that may induce
> conflict, as well as to consider the wording of
> our inquiry.
>
> Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on
> the social impact. Do you have a resource
> you can reach out to? (Or is it something
> you’re willing to research to compile some
> facts?)
I am by no means an expert in “Apache culture”, but I think Wikipedia
describes it well when it says: “The Apache Nations are politically
autonomous, speak several different languages, and have distinct cultures.”
To refer to them all as a singular culture is a misnomer and neglects the
complexity of the problem being presented.
What is being appropriated here is a broad group of people. On social media
you can find examples of people who identify as Apache both deriding and
celebrating uses of the term by us and other organizations who appropriate
it. A lot of what you find depends on where you look. Like any group of
people you’re going to find a range of opinions. No people are a monolith.
That’s one of the problems with appropriation and stereotyping like this is
that it reduces so many complexities into a single label that we are wildly
misusing.
I’d like to make it clear that I’m not Apache, nor do I know anyone who
identifies as Apache. I am from a pretty different part of the country. Our
language, Lingít, is in the Na-Dene language family along with the interior
Athabaskan languages like the Apache languages.
Lingít has been labeled “critically endangered” by some, but there are
serious efforts being placed into restoring its use after it was forcefully
suppressed by previous generations. Some of the few stories I know of my
grandmother are about her experiences passed down of her punishments for
speaking her language at school. She didn’t pass down her language.
I think if you all tried to make a Tlingit Software Foundation, amongst
other numerous offenses having an “English Only” policy such as this list
has would definitely sting.
A lot of traditional Tlingit law involves intellectual property, as does US
law. New institutions and laws have enabled efforts to end appropriations
and cultural thefts. After one of our corporations won a settlement with
Neiman Marcus they burned an example of the offending intellectual property
in a ceremony downtown:
https://www.juneauempire.com/news/saga-over-garment-design-copyright-infringement-ends-in-ceremonial-fire/
As much as we might want to describe the relationship between ASF and
Apache peoples as “coincidental” the fact of the matter is that it’s not a
relationship of coincidence rather it is of exploitation.
It’s not just me saying this, check out our cameo in this Washington Post
opinion article from a year ago about the Jeep controversy Ed’s been
mentioning:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/07/jeep-cherokee-name-change-native-americans/
I’d like to quote its closing here for emphasis:
> Remedying the harms of the past will require
> more than simply changing a name or a
> logo, but it is a first step toward ensuring
> that racial stereotypes are retired to the
> annals of history.
The opinion also covers a point that a protester of the Cleveland team
made: “I am not a mascot.” I don’t see Apache people as mascots either and
I have no interest in exploiting their identity to develop software. Again,
people have been saying this for years
https://github.com/Quick/Quick/issues/660, our appropriation is pretty much
a textbook example:
https://qz.com/805704/columbus-day-cultural-appropriation-white-americans-need-to-stop-assuming-native-american-culture-belongs-to-them-too/
if it hasn’t been written about yet in an actual textbook I’m sure it will
be.
When it comes to Indigenous sovereignty, settler-colonial organizations are
famous for only doing the right thing when absolutely forced to do so, and
maybe that will be true of us here at ASF, but if so it will be a shame.
Until then we’re probably going to keep pissing people off and getting made
fun of, and rightfully so.
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 11:46 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> As mentioned elsewhere, one of the possibilities for the middle ground 3)
> is respectful, proactive dissociation from the Apache Tribes, leaving only
> the name in the scope of the "software". Including the logo, re-cutting
> movies and everything we can track where the "Apache" is currently in any
> way linked to the Apache Tribe (while respectfully mentioning the origin
> and that we detached from this consciously).
>
> PRO:
> * relatively easy to implement (comparing to full speed ahead at least)
> * allows the community to pay respect while not really following
> "reparation" (implicitly reaffirming that there is no actual/intentional
> damage to the Tribe)
> * allows us to keep the valuable brand developed over 20 years
> * shows that the ASF responds to concerns and does not "sweep such things
> under the rug"
>
> CON:
> * not everyone sees it is possible to de-attach
> * a number of people will still have concerns
> * might not prevent us from litigation for the "past" even if we manage to
> de-associate
>
> Also I'd argue (just a little) about the "2) PRO: This removes any and all
> risk in perpetuity" - it does not remove all risk. Still it is possible
> that someone litigates the "renamed" ASF use of Apache for the past 20
> years. The past is there and we are not able to change it. I think while
> renaming might decrease the risk significantly, it does not remove it
> completely. If someone wants potential damages repaired, it's a bit the
> same as in case of de-associating (but without the possibility of Cease &
> Desist - so yeah - it is much less of a problem if it happens and can only
> result - potentially - in having to pay the damages).
>
> J.
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:14 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> > Our legal folks have responded (quickly!).
> >
> > I’m quoting the recommendation here:
> >
> > If someone wants to take ASF to court over this, we can
> > worry about it, then. Until then, there isn't really anything we can do
> > about it other than try to be as benign as possible toward those people
> > who might consider such litigation.
> >
> >
> > Benign as possible can be read in a number of different ways, depending
> on
> > how we are defining the scope (federally recognized Apache nations, all
> > Apache nations, all indigenous tribes, etc.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.) (Extreme 1) Do nothing. Without a registered complaint from the
> tribe,
> > this is analogous to an “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, approach”.
> >
> > PRO: We don’t bring attention to a problem by communicating a scenario
> >
> > CON: There has been communicated social impact complaints that aren’t
> > being addressed. There is a latent risk.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2.) (Extreme 2) Do everything. Just change the name and the license
> > proactively. This is a “full speed ahead” proactive effort.
> >
> > PRO: This removes any and all risk in perpetuity
> >
> > CON: The level of effort is substantial, and it may exceed social
> > responsibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3.) Middle ground. Not sure what that is.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
> > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
> >
> > Bravo. Brilliant.
> >
> >
> > Owen Rubel
> > orubel@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
> > >
> > > I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to
> > > understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a
> > better
> > > understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from
> > us,
> > > through litigation?”
> > >
> > > My thought process is the following:
> > >
> > > Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst
> > > case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on
> > any
> > > journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to
> > define
> > > the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
> > >
> > > I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set
> > conversations
> > > going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the
> > defined
> > > risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning
> > > strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
> > >
> > > —
> > >
> > > That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have
> > to
> > > consider.
> > >
> > > Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question
> > > inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a
> > gun
> > > to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those
> > > involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think
> > it’s
> > > something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is
> > approached
> > > with care.
> > >
> > > It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture
> > (nothing
> > > exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before
> > > performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether).
> > At
> > > the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may
> > induce
> > > conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
> > >
> > > Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you
> have
> > a
> > > resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to
> > > research to compile some facts?)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: me <me...@emangini.com>
> > > Reply: me <me...@emangini.com>
> > > Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
> > > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <
> > > orubel@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
> > >
> > > Owen,
> > >
> > > You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
> > > (Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to
> > > better understand your position.)
> > >
> > > 1.) Business Risk.
> > >
> > > Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people.
> > > Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the
> > > claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in
> > the
> > > United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and
> > license.
> > > It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that
> > risk.
> > >
> > > This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand
> > > wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it
> > further.
> > >
> > > Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source
> > Business,
> > > but we create products that are consumed.
> > >
> > > Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
> > socially
> > > or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or
> > > dismissal of complaints should they arise.
> > >
> > > 2.) Social Impact.
> > >
> > > There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure
> > to
> > > differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is
> > to
> > > demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
> > > (NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the
> > > articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was
> > > derived from recognizing current social climate.
> > >
> > > Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor:
> > > “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
> > >
> > > Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
> > > socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for
> > separation
> > > or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
> > >
> > > —
> > >
> > > To your point about jumping the gun:
> > >
> > > Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived
> > > categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there
> > had
> > > been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t.
> > Does
> > > that matter?
> > >
> > > Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out
> > > endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
> > >
> > > There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to
> > > rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure
> > > that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of
> > > risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my
> > involvement.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> > > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
> > > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
> > >
> > > This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
> > >
> > > Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or
> > > reached
> > > out?
> > >
> > > You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
> > > will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
> > >
> > > Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits
> > > off
> > > the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
> > >
> > > This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue
> > when
> > > no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
> > >
> > > Owen Rubel
> > > orubel@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, all.
> > > >
> > > > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of
> > > our
> > > > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in
> > the
> > > > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> > > >
> > > > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> > > Nation
> > > > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > > > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> > > Such
> > > > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much
> > > more
> > > > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > > > England to describe a nominal rent.
> > > >
> > > > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our
> > hands
> > > > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> > > >
> > > > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > > > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > > > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical
> > > infrastructure
> > > > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> > > >
> > > > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the
> > > package:
> > > >
> > > > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > > > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> > > >
> > > > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> > > tossed
> > > > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> > > >
> > > > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a
> > negative,
> > > as
> > > > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the
> > people
> > > of
> > > > the Apache Nation.
> > > >
> > > > a
> > > > --
> > > > Andrew Wetmore
> > > >
> > > > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > > > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
As mentioned elsewhere, one of the possibilities for the middle ground 3)
is respectful, proactive dissociation from the Apache Tribes, leaving only
the name in the scope of the "software". Including the logo, re-cutting
movies and everything we can track where the "Apache" is currently in any
way linked to the Apache Tribe (while respectfully mentioning the origin
and that we detached from this consciously).
PRO:
* relatively easy to implement (comparing to full speed ahead at least)
* allows the community to pay respect while not really following
"reparation" (implicitly reaffirming that there is no actual/intentional
damage to the Tribe)
* allows us to keep the valuable brand developed over 20 years
* shows that the ASF responds to concerns and does not "sweep such things
under the rug"
CON:
* not everyone sees it is possible to de-attach
* a number of people will still have concerns
* might not prevent us from litigation for the "past" even if we manage to
de-associate
Also I'd argue (just a little) about the "2) PRO: This removes any and all
risk in perpetuity" - it does not remove all risk. Still it is possible
that someone litigates the "renamed" ASF use of Apache for the past 20
years. The past is there and we are not able to change it. I think while
renaming might decrease the risk significantly, it does not remove it
completely. If someone wants potential damages repaired, it's a bit the
same as in case of de-associating (but without the possibility of Cease &
Desist - so yeah - it is much less of a problem if it happens and can only
result - potentially - in having to pay the damages).
J.
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:14 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> Our legal folks have responded (quickly!).
>
> I’m quoting the recommendation here:
>
> If someone wants to take ASF to court over this, we can
> worry about it, then. Until then, there isn't really anything we can do
> about it other than try to be as benign as possible toward those people
> who might consider such litigation.
>
>
> Benign as possible can be read in a number of different ways, depending on
> how we are defining the scope (federally recognized Apache nations, all
> Apache nations, all indigenous tribes, etc.)
>
>
>
> 1.) (Extreme 1) Do nothing. Without a registered complaint from the tribe,
> this is analogous to an “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, approach”.
>
> PRO: We don’t bring attention to a problem by communicating a scenario
>
> CON: There has been communicated social impact complaints that aren’t
> being addressed. There is a latent risk.
>
>
>
> 2.) (Extreme 2) Do everything. Just change the name and the license
> proactively. This is a “full speed ahead” proactive effort.
>
> PRO: This removes any and all risk in perpetuity
>
> CON: The level of effort is substantial, and it may exceed social
> responsibility.
>
>
>
> 3.) Middle ground. Not sure what that is.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
>
> Bravo. Brilliant.
>
>
> Owen Rubel
> orubel@gmail.com
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> > Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
> >
> > I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to
> > understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a
> better
> > understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from
> us,
> > through litigation?”
> >
> > My thought process is the following:
> >
> > Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst
> > case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on
> any
> > journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to
> define
> > the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
> >
> > I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set
> conversations
> > going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the
> defined
> > risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning
> > strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
> >
> > —
> >
> > That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have
> to
> > consider.
> >
> > Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question
> > inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a
> gun
> > to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those
> > involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think
> it’s
> > something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is
> approached
> > with care.
> >
> > It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture
> (nothing
> > exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before
> > performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether).
> At
> > the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may
> induce
> > conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
> >
> > Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you have
> a
> > resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to
> > research to compile some facts?)
> >
> >
> >
> > From: me <me...@emangini.com>
> > Reply: me <me...@emangini.com>
> > Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
> > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <
> > orubel@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
> >
> > Owen,
> >
> > You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
> > (Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to
> > better understand your position.)
> >
> > 1.) Business Risk.
> >
> > Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people.
> > Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the
> > claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in
> the
> > United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and
> license.
> > It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that
> risk.
> >
> > This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand
> > wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it
> further.
> >
> > Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source
> Business,
> > but we create products that are consumed.
> >
> > Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
> socially
> > or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or
> > dismissal of complaints should they arise.
> >
> > 2.) Social Impact.
> >
> > There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure
> to
> > differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is
> to
> > demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
> > (NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the
> > articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was
> > derived from recognizing current social climate.
> >
> > Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor:
> > “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
> >
> > Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
> > socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for
> separation
> > or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
> >
> > —
> >
> > To your point about jumping the gun:
> >
> > Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived
> > categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there
> had
> > been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t.
> Does
> > that matter?
> >
> > Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out
> > endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
> >
> > There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to
> > rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure
> > that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of
> > risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my
> involvement.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
> > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
> >
> > This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
> >
> > Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or
> > reached
> > out?
> >
> > You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
> > will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
> >
> > Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits
> > off
> > the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
> >
> > This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue
> when
> > no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
> >
> > Owen Rubel
> > orubel@gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, all.
> > >
> > > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of
> > our
> > > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in
> the
> > > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> > >
> > > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> > Nation
> > > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> > Such
> > > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much
> > more
> > > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > > England to describe a nominal rent.
> > >
> > > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our
> hands
> > > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> > >
> > > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical
> > infrastructure
> > > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> > >
> > > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the
> > package:
> > >
> > > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> > >
> > > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> > tossed
> > > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> > >
> > > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a
> negative,
> > as
> > > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the
> people
> > of
> > > the Apache Nation.
> > >
> > > a
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
Our legal folks have responded (quickly!).
I’m quoting the recommendation here:
If someone wants to take ASF to court over this, we can
worry about it, then. Until then, there isn't really anything we can do
about it other than try to be as benign as possible toward those people
who might consider such litigation.
Benign as possible can be read in a number of different ways, depending on how we are defining the scope (federally recognized Apache nations, all Apache nations, all indigenous tribes, etc.)
1.) (Extreme 1) Do nothing. Without a registered complaint from the tribe, this is analogous to an “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, approach”.
PRO: We don’t bring attention to a problem by communicating a scenario
CON: There has been communicated social impact complaints that aren’t being addressed. There is a latent risk.
2.) (Extreme 2) Do everything. Just change the name and the license proactively. This is a “full speed ahead” proactive effort.
PRO: This removes any and all risk in perpetuity
CON: The level of effort is substantial, and it may exceed social responsibility.
3.) Middle ground. Not sure what that is.
Cheers!
Ed
From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Bravo. Brilliant.
Owen Rubel
orubel@gmail.com
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
>
> I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to
> understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a better
> understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from us,
> through litigation?”
>
> My thought process is the following:
>
> Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst
> case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on any
> journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to define
> the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
>
> I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set conversations
> going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the defined
> risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning
> strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
>
> —
>
> That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have to
> consider.
>
> Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question
> inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a gun
> to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those
> involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think it’s
> something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is approached
> with care.
>
> It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture (nothing
> exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before
> performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether). At
> the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may induce
> conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
>
> Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you have a
> resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to
> research to compile some facts?)
>
>
>
> From: me <me...@emangini.com>
> Reply: me <me...@emangini.com>
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <
> orubel@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> Owen,
>
> You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
> (Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to
> better understand your position.)
>
> 1.) Business Risk.
>
> Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people.
> Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the
> claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in the
> United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and license.
> It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that risk.
>
> This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand
> wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it further.
>
> Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source Business,
> but we create products that are consumed.
>
> Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially
> or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or
> dismissal of complaints should they arise.
>
> 2.) Social Impact.
>
> There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure to
> differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is to
> demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
> (NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the
> articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was
> derived from recognizing current social climate.
>
> Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor:
> “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
>
> Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
> socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation
> or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
>
> —
>
> To your point about jumping the gun:
>
> Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived
> categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there had
> been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t. Does
> that matter?
>
> Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out
> endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
>
> There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to
> rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure
> that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of
> risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my involvement.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
>
> Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or
> reached
> out?
>
> You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
> will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
>
> Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits
> off
> the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
>
> This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
> no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
>
> Owen Rubel
> orubel@gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of
> our
> > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> >
> > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> Nation
> > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> Such
> > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much
> more
> > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > England to describe a nominal rent.
> >
> > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> >
> > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical
> infrastructure
> > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> >
> > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the
> package:
> >
> > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> >
> > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> tossed
> > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> >
> > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> as
> > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> of
> > the Apache Nation.
> >
> > a
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> >
>
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>.
Bravo. Brilliant.
Owen Rubel
orubel@gmail.com
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
>
> I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to
> understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a better
> understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from us,
> through litigation?”
>
> My thought process is the following:
>
> Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst
> case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on any
> journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to define
> the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
>
> I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set conversations
> going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the defined
> risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning
> strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
>
> —
>
> That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have to
> consider.
>
> Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question
> inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a gun
> to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those
> involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think it’s
> something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is approached
> with care.
>
> It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture (nothing
> exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before
> performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether). At
> the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may induce
> conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
>
> Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you have a
> resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to
> research to compile some facts?)
>
>
>
> From: me <me...@emangini.com>
> Reply: me <me...@emangini.com>
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <
> orubel@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> Owen,
>
> You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
> (Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to
> better understand your position.)
>
> 1.) Business Risk.
>
> Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people.
> Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the
> claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in the
> United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and license.
> It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that risk.
>
> This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand
> wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it further.
>
> Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source Business,
> but we create products that are consumed.
>
> Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially
> or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or
> dismissal of complaints should they arise.
>
> 2.) Social Impact.
>
> There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure to
> differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is to
> demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
> (NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the
> articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was
> derived from recognizing current social climate.
>
> Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor:
> “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
>
> Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally,
> socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation
> or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
>
> —
>
> To your point about jumping the gun:
>
> Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived
> categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there had
> been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t. Does
> that matter?
>
> Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out
> endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
>
> There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to
> rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure
> that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of
> risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my involvement.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
>
> Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or
> reached
> out?
>
> You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
> will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
>
> Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits
> off
> the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
>
> This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
> no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
>
> Owen Rubel
> orubel@gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of
> our
> > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> >
> > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> Nation
> > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> Such
> > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much
> more
> > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > England to describe a nominal rent.
> >
> > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> >
> > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical
> infrastructure
> > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> >
> > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the
> package:
> >
> > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> >
> > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> tossed
> > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> >
> > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> as
> > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> of
> > the Apache Nation.
> >
> > a
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> >
>
Naming/Branding: First Steps
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
Happy Friday/Saturday esteemed colleagues and collaborators!
I kicked off the first steps by reaching out to the legal team to understand the risk/worst case scenario. I’m attempting to gain a better understanding to the question: “What if the choice is taken away from us, through litigation?”
My thought process is the following:
Irrespective of social climate, level of effort, etc. there is a worst case scenario represented by the ever present risk. Before we embark on any journeys of epic proportions for the greater good, it’s helpful to define the stakes and understand our primary responsibilities: our community.
I think it’s a fair assumption that this will help level set conversations going forward, as well as to provide us a next question: “Given the defined risk, what is its magnitude?” (i.e. is it a 1 in a billion lightning strike, or a 50/50 coin flip).
—
That said, I think there is a derivative of Owen’s statements we have to consider.
Asking a question to parties who haven't considered that question inevitably runs the risk of changing their perspective. If there is a gun to be jumped, this is most likely it. If I can make a request of those involved thus far, can you sleep on this and think about it? I think it’s something we need to consider internally so that any outreach is approached with care.
It might be worth doing some internal research on Apache culture (nothing exhaustive, but enough for us to understand tribal values) before performing outreach (or in the extreme, from performing it altogether). At the very least this can help us navigate away from areas that may induce conflict, as well as to consider the wording of our inquiry.
Walter, you seem to have a decent hold on the social impact. Do you have a resource you can reach out to? (Or is it something you’re willing to research to compile some facts?)
From: me <me...@emangini.com>
Reply: me <me...@emangini.com>
Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>, Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
Owen,
You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
(Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to better understand your position.)
1.) Business Risk.
Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people. Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in the United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and license. It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that risk.
This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it further.
Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source Business, but we create products that are consumed.
Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
2.) Social Impact.
There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure to differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is to demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
(NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was derived from recognizing current social climate.
Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor: “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
—
To your point about jumping the gun:
Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there had been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t. Does that matter?
Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my involvement.)
From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or reached
out?
You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits off
the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
Owen Rubel
orubel@gmail.com
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
>
> What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache Nation
> (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs? Such
> a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> England to describe a nominal rent.
>
> The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> made available to members of the Apache Nation:
>
> - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
>
> On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
>
> - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
>
> Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just tossed
> into the ring. Please suggest them.
>
> This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative, as
> we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people of
> the Apache Nation.
>
> a
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
Owen,
You’re conflating different aspects of the circumstances.
(Are you not from the US? Sorry for my ignorance. I’m just trying to better understand your position.)
1.) Business Risk.
Our brand name has a causal relationship with an indigenous people. Regardless of our reputation or status, that indigenous people has the claim to the naming and branding based on existing legal precedent in the United States. This presents a business risk to the foundation and license. It would be in the best interest of the foundation to evaluate that risk.
This problem exists whether it is dormant or active. I’m going to hand wave for brevity, but I’m happy to take this offline to explain it further.
Yes, the ASF is a business. It may be a Non-Profit, Open Source Business, but we create products that are consumed.
Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
2.) Social Impact.
There have been several attempts to try to use the non-profit structure to differentiate the ASF from sports teams. The example of sports teams is to demonstrate social climate and its impact on businesses.
(NOTE: Jeep proactively engaged with the Cherokee nation, based on the articles previously shared. There was no complaint.) Their effort was derived from recognizing current social climate.
Tying this back to business… being proactive is a due diligence factor: “What is the risk of continuing to perform action X?”
Again. Profit and intent are irrelevant. There is no barrier (legally, socially or in business) that makes these concepts a means for separation or dismissal of complaints should they arise.
—
To your point about jumping the gun:
Maybe? This thread started with Walter’s sentiments. Those are derived categorically from social impact/climate. Walter suggested that there had been inquiries, I believe? For a moment, let’s say that there isn’t. Does that matter?
Social Climate is not subject to logic or math. Cherokee could flat out endorse Jeep, and Apache could sue us. (Or vice versa).
There is a much larger issue than just a “read the room effort” to rebrand. We have a responsibility to the community as a whole to ensure that the products are safe to consume going forward in the presence of risk. Personally, this is my primary concern (and core to my involvement.)
From: Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>
Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or reached
out?
You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits off
the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
Owen Rubel
orubel@gmail.com
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
>
> What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache Nation
> (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs? Such
> a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> England to describe a nominal rent.
>
> The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> made available to members of the Apache Nation:
>
> - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
>
> On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
>
> - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
>
> Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just tossed
> into the ring. Please suggest them.
>
> This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative, as
> we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people of
> the Apache Nation.
>
> a
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Owen Rubel <or...@gmail.com>.
This issue still is that we are jumping the gun.
Has any REPRESENTATIVE from the Apache Nation filed a complaint or reached
out?
You may be creating a problem that does not exist. If we are doing good
will, it may be noticed and not seen as an issue.
Apache Foundation is a non-profit and not a baseball team that profits off
the Apache Nation creating offensive hand gestures, etc.
This may be a non-issue from the start and you are creating an issue when
no REPRESENTATIVE has made a statement or complained.
Owen Rubel
orubel@gmail.com
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:05 AM Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
>
> What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache Nation
> (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs? Such
> a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> England to describe a nominal rent.
>
> The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> made available to members of the Apache Nation:
>
> - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
>
> On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
>
> - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
>
> Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just tossed
> into the ring. Please suggest them.
>
> This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative, as
> we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people of
> the Apache Nation.
>
> a
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
To your point, it hasn’t gone over well. It doesn’t seem to have impacted sales (at least as far as I can tell), but they did create a brand spankin’ new Jeep Grand Cherokee for 2022.
While I’m drawing a parallel based on the semantics of name usage (i.e. Apache is a nation name, Cherokee is a nation name), their circumstance has a much easier solution. Discontinuing an automobile “name” is a lot easier than rebranding an entire organization.
They can still be Jeep.
From: Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org>
Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Date: May 11, 2022 at 15:31:49
To: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
On 2022-05-11 at 14:56:13 UTC-0400 (Wed, 11 May 2022 14:56:13 -0400)
me <de...@community.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named
> for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side
> stepping the logo for the moment.
>
> The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were
> March of 2021
>
> - Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from
> Jeep.
> - Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
Back in the mists of time I worked for Chrysler (then parent of Jeep)
and there was briefly a kerfuffle over Jeep's "Cherokee" appropriation,
as it is an issue that comes up episodically and never is resolved. I
did not follow the public statements at the time, but the phrase that
stuck with me from internal communications was "pound sand." I'm a bit
surprised that they engaged further more recently, but times do change.
I absolutely do not think ASF should replicate that stance.
--
Bill Cole
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Bill Cole <bi...@apache.org>.
On 2022-05-11 at 14:56:13 UTC-0400 (Wed, 11 May 2022 14:56:13 -0400)
me <de...@community.apache.org>
is rumored to have said:
> The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named
> for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side
> stepping the logo for the moment.
>
> The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were
> March of 2021
>
> - Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from
> Jeep.
> - Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
Back in the mists of time I worked for Chrysler (then parent of Jeep)
and there was briefly a kerfuffle over Jeep's "Cherokee" appropriation,
as it is an issue that comes up episodically and never is resolved. I
did not follow the public statements at the time, but the phrase that
stuck with me from internal communications was "pound sand." I'm a bit
surprised that they engaged further more recently, but times do change.
I absolutely do not think ASF should replicate that stance.
--
Bill Cole
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:49 PM Walter Cameron
<wa...@waltercameron.com> wrote:
>
> > YOU MUST NOT reach out to ANYONE on behalf of the Apache Software
> > Foundation without coordinating with M&P. Without their approval, you
> > are NOT authorized to speak on behalf of the ASF, or put yourself in a
> > position where it appears that you are doing so.
>
> For those of us who don’t have access to the internal deliberations on this
> topic can you offer any update? Is outreach something membership or M&P is
> still interested in pursuing with regards to understanding the impact of
> their brand? If so, what kind of outreach are they envisioning?
Permit me to rephrase Rich's request.
Build a plan. Bring it before M&P (specifically Joe Brockmeier) prior
to execution.
> Gunalchéesh,
> Walter
- Sam Ruby
> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:36 AM <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 14:56 -0400, me wrote:
> > > This is more or less in line with what I think we’ve anticipated. I
> > > really appreciate you providing the info.
> > >
> > > That said… to outreach or not to outreach… that is the question.
> >
> > So ... I have been staying out of this conversation rather
> > intentionally for a number of reasons, but I feel I must speak up here.
> >
> > YOU MUST NOT reach out to ANYONE on behalf of the Apache Software
> > Foundation without coordinating with M&P. Without their approval, you
> > are NOT authorized to speak on behalf of the ASF, or put yourself in a
> > position where it appears that you are doing so.
> >
> >
> > Please forgive if I am coming across stronger than warranted here, but
> > this is a line that you MUST NOT cross without the approval of M&P.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --Rich, with Board of Directors hat on.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I’m going to try to remain impartial in order to facilitate. (i.e.
> > > this isn’t my opinion, I’m just trying to help move things forward).
> > >
> > > The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named
> > > for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side
> > > stepping the logo for the moment.
> > >
> > > The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were
> > > March of 2021
> > >
> > > - Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from
> > > Jeep.
> > > - Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > > Reply: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > > Date: May 9, 2022 at 09:52:47
> > > To: me <me...@emangini.com>
> > > Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:35 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Roman, welcome to the party!
> > >
> > > LOL! Thanks ;-)
> > >
> > > > I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well
> > > > understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks?
> > > > (i.e. likelihood?)
> > >
> > > IIRC mostly the likelihood.
> > >
> > > > Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous
> > > > assessment?
> > >
> > > It was deemed to be low: primarily based on our historic use of the
> > > name (we have been pretty respectful with it) and the fact that
> > > whoever brings the lawsuit will have to have a standing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Walter Cameron <wa...@waltercameron.com>.
> YOU MUST NOT reach out to ANYONE on behalf of the Apache Software
> Foundation without coordinating with M&P. Without their approval, you
> are NOT authorized to speak on behalf of the ASF, or put yourself in a
> position where it appears that you are doing so.
For those of us who don’t have access to the internal deliberations on this
topic can you offer any update? Is outreach something membership or M&P is
still interested in pursuing with regards to understanding the impact of
their brand? If so, what kind of outreach are they envisioning?
Gunalchéesh,
Walter
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 4:36 AM <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 14:56 -0400, me wrote:
> > This is more or less in line with what I think we’ve anticipated. I
> > really appreciate you providing the info.
> >
> > That said… to outreach or not to outreach… that is the question.
>
> So ... I have been staying out of this conversation rather
> intentionally for a number of reasons, but I feel I must speak up here.
>
> YOU MUST NOT reach out to ANYONE on behalf of the Apache Software
> Foundation without coordinating with M&P. Without their approval, you
> are NOT authorized to speak on behalf of the ASF, or put yourself in a
> position where it appears that you are doing so.
>
>
> Please forgive if I am coming across stronger than warranted here, but
> this is a line that you MUST NOT cross without the approval of M&P.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Rich, with Board of Directors hat on.
>
>
>
>
> > I’m going to try to remain impartial in order to facilitate. (i.e.
> > this isn’t my opinion, I’m just trying to help move things forward).
> >
> > The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named
> > for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side
> > stepping the logo for the moment.
> >
> > The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were
> > March of 2021
> >
> > - Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from
> > Jeep.
> > - Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Reply: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > Date: May 9, 2022 at 09:52:47
> > To: me <me...@emangini.com>
> > Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
> >
> > On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:35 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Roman, welcome to the party!
> >
> > LOL! Thanks ;-)
> >
> > > I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well
> > > understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks?
> > > (i.e. likelihood?)
> >
> > IIRC mostly the likelihood.
> >
> > > Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous
> > > assessment?
> >
> > It was deemed to be low: primarily based on our historic use of the
> > name (we have been pretty respectful with it) and the fact that
> > whoever brings the lawsuit will have to have a standing.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
<div></div><div>On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 14:56 -0400, me wrote:
<br/>> This is more or less in line with what I think we’ve anticipated. I
<br/>> really appreciate you providing the info.
<br/>>
<br/>> That said… to outreach or not to outreach… that is the question.
<br/>
<br/>So ... I have been staying out of this conversation rather
<br/>intentionally for a number of reasons, but I feel I must speak up here.
<br/>
<br/>YOU MUST NOT reach out to ANYONE on behalf of the Apache Software
<br/>Foundation without coordinating with M&P. Without their approval, you
<br/>are NOT authorized to speak on behalf of the ASF, or put yourself in a
<br/>position where it appears that you are doing so.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>Please forgive if I am coming across stronger than warranted here, but
<br/>this is a line that you MUST NOT cross without the approval of M&P.
<br/>
<br/>Thanks.
<br/>
<br/>--Rich, with Board of Directors hat on.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>> I’m going to try to remain impartial in order to facilitate. (i.e.
<br/>> this isn’t my opinion, I’m just trying to help move things forward).
<br/>>
<br/>> The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named
<br/>> for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side
<br/>> stepping the logo for the moment.
<br/>>
<br/>> The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were
<br/>> March of 2021
<br/>>
<br/>> - Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from
<br/>> Jeep.
<br/>> - Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>>
<br/>> From: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
<br/>> Reply: Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
<br/>> Date: May 9, 2022 at 09:52:47
<br/>> To: me <me@emangini.com>
<br/>> Cc: ComDev <dev@community.apache.org>
<br/>> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
<br/>>
<br/>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:35 PM me <me@emangini.com> wrote:
<br/>> >
<br/>> > Roman, welcome to the party!
<br/>>
<br/>> LOL! Thanks ;-)
<br/>>
<br/>> > I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well
<br/>> > understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks?
<br/>> > (i.e. likelihood?)
<br/>>
<br/>> IIRC mostly the likelihood.
<br/>>
<br/>> > Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous
<br/>> > assessment?
<br/>>
<br/>> It was deemed to be low: primarily based on our historic use of the
<br/>> name (we have been pretty respectful with it) and the fact that
<br/>> whoever brings the lawsuit will have to have a standing.
<br/>>
<br/>> Thanks,
<br/>> Roman.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>---------------------------------------------------------------------
<br/>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
<br/>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
<br/>
<br/></div>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by rb...@rcbowen.com.
On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 14:56 -0400, me wrote:
> This is more or less in line with what I think we’ve anticipated. I
> really appreciate you providing the info.
>
> That said… to outreach or not to outreach… that is the question.
So ... I have been staying out of this conversation rather
intentionally for a number of reasons, but I feel I must speak up here.
YOU MUST NOT reach out to ANYONE on behalf of the Apache Software
Foundation without coordinating with M&P. Without their approval, you
are NOT authorized to speak on behalf of the ASF, or put yourself in a
position where it appears that you are doing so.
Please forgive if I am coming across stronger than warranted here, but
this is a line that you MUST NOT cross without the approval of M&P.
Thanks.
--Rich, with Board of Directors hat on.
> I’m going to try to remain impartial in order to facilitate. (i.e.
> this isn’t my opinion, I’m just trying to help move things forward).
>
> The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named
> for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side
> stepping the logo for the moment.
>
> The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were
> March of 2021
>
> - Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from
> Jeep.
> - Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
>
>
>
>
> From: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Reply: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Date: May 9, 2022 at 09:52:47
> To: me <me...@emangini.com>
> Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:35 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> >
> > Roman, welcome to the party!
>
> LOL! Thanks ;-)
>
> > I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well
> > understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks?
> > (i.e. likelihood?)
>
> IIRC mostly the likelihood.
>
> > Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous
> > assessment?
>
> It was deemed to be low: primarily based on our historic use of the
> name (we have been pretty respectful with it) and the fact that
> whoever brings the lawsuit will have to have a standing.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
This is more or less in line with what I think we’ve anticipated. I really appreciate you providing the info.
That said… to outreach or not to outreach… that is the question.
—
I’m going to try to remain impartial in order to facilitate. (i.e. this isn’t my opinion, I’m just trying to help move things forward).
The scenario w/ Jeep is the most synonymous to Apache. (We are named for a tribe, rather than a synonymous term or epithet). I’m side stepping the logo for the moment.
The last words I could find on the subject (w/ a brief scan) were March of 2021
- Chief Hoskins of the Cherokee Nation did request a name change from Jeep.
- Jeep opened up talks, but they didn’t comply.
From: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Reply: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Date: May 9, 2022 at 09:52:47
To: me <me...@emangini.com>
Cc: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:35 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> Roman, welcome to the party!
LOL! Thanks ;-)
> I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks? (i.e. likelihood?)
IIRC mostly the likelihood.
> Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous assessment?
It was deemed to be low: primarily based on our historic use of the
name (we have been pretty respectful with it) and the fact that
whoever brings the lawsuit will have to have a standing.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:35 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> Roman, welcome to the party!
LOL! Thanks ;-)
> I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks? (i.e. likelihood?)
IIRC mostly the likelihood.
> Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous assessment?
It was deemed to be low: primarily based on our historic use of the
name (we have been pretty respectful with it) and the fact that
whoever brings the lawsuit will have to have a standing.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
Roman, welcome to the party!
I think the scope of the risk (in terms of “what”) is fairly well understood. Did you also estimate the probability of the risks? (i.e. likelihood?)
Do you mind sharing what the results were of the previous assessment?
From: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Date: May 9, 2022 at 05:46:43
To: ComDev <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:54 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> I think it's a good idea to make such a fund or simply make sure that
> existing efforts (TAC, Outreachy engagement) have some deliberate and
> conscious actions in this direction - knowing the past association - and
> showing the respect and following the original mindset of people who
> created the foundation.
> I want to re-iterate that we have to proceed with caution here. We’re making assumptions based on western culture and values. The way funds are made available has to be approached carefully. A scholarship or social award might be more diplomatic? I can’t speak for the Apache, but I can re-iterate that trying this w/ some nations is going to be received as offensive.
>
>
>
> Just one comment here - I stated my opinion in the member's discussions -
> that's my personal view of course, that there is nothing to repair as there
> is no damage and simply de-association of Apache name while also showing
> the respect and engage community to actively work on de-associating is a
> better way of handling the issue than any repair.
> How do we know that there is no damage or repair until we speak with them?
>
>
>
> Using the word "reparation" here is certainly not the one I'd use. It might
> be good will and sign of respect, but in no-way it should bring any
> obligation on the ASF.
>
> If I see "Association with permission" is extremely dangerous for the
> foundation that worked 20 years on the brand being it's most valuable asset
> (without the real piggy-backing on the Apache Tribe in order to build the
> reputation). Just having "permission" from others on the important asset of
> the ASF foundation brand depending on non-member decisions might also be
> illegal from the foundation bylaws (I am not a lawyer and certainly do not
> know much about US law). This would basically mean that we put the fate of
> the foundation in the hands of non-members.
>
>
> I don’t mean to nudge here, but I’m going to.
>
> I want to be very open that I don’t necessarily agree with the “change the name at all costs approach”. Maybe I’m naive, but I find a romantic element to having organizations that can share a name with a group of people that represents the characteristics of those people, while maintaining a consistent responsibility to represent them cooperatively.
>
> That said, I also recognize we live in a polarizing social climate, so I feel it is a responsible direction to hear the tribe and hear what they have to say to determine if a problem exists. My only caution with the approach is that it is temporary. We could find out it doesn’t bother anyone today, only to have it revisited in X amount of time to find that it is no longer acceptable. I don’t personally understand the problem well enough to know what the degree or stability of those relationships and perceptions are.
>
> I understand the apprehension to the word “permission’. If I can put this in radical terms, how would you feel if I started a software foundation called the Jarek Potiuk foundation?
> Then I would create a name page similar to https://www.apache.org/apache-name/ Most of the verbiage would be respectful, and would pay homage to an inspiring colleague “Jarek Potiuk"
>
> Then in some fashion like this -> As the Apache HTTP Server grew from patches applied to the NCSA Server, a pun on the name quickly spread amongst members of the community, with the rumor being that “Apache” actually stood for “a ‘patchy’ server”. As time passed, the popularity of the “A Patchy Server” story grew: rumor became lore, and lore became legend.
>
> I would write… "as an open source project, each of us brought our own spice to the software, very much like a ‘potluck’ dish. Given the similarities in the name we called it internally a “Potluck Foundation”…etc.
>
> Maybe you are ok with it. Maybe not. Maybe your family and descendants aren’t ok with it later. Either way, that is your name, and you have every right in this country (US) to tell us not to use it. If we don’t comply, and you sue us, we can lose the right to use the name as well as be penalized financially. (Apologies if this offends. I’m trying to demonstrate a parallel.)
>
> There is a causal relationship between the foundation’s name and the Apache people based on the link provided above.
>
> What I’m going to suggest as the following is an extreme case. However, it can’t be ignored. There is legal precedent for companies being sued in the United States over the use of tribal names. (One that immediately comes to mind is the Allergan case. They paid an annual $15 million dollar royalty to a Mohawk nation while the patents remained valid, as well as handed over those patents to the tribe. I believe Apple and Google have also both been sued in similar cases.)
>
> As an open source body with no revenue, the common alternative is a cease and desist suit.
The risk level of this was assessed in the past. With my VP Legal hat
on we can do a reassessment now to understand what it is.
This is NOT to distract from the argument that is going on on this
list right now.
Thanks,
Roman.
> I’m not a lawyer either, but I have had to be involved in the process of recording patents and study of infringement cases (simply as part of being a chief technologist/architect). What would be the impact of a cease and desist suit against the Apache trademark? How would this impact the Apache License? I believe the projects under the license numbers in the tens of thousands.
>
> Email is terrible for tone, so let me call out that I’m not suggesting this with a “sky is falling, doom and gloom” angle. I’m trying to bring forth that this risk exists one way or another as long as we continue to use the “Apache” name and brand.
>
> It may be worth the effort to perform due diligence in this regard.
>
>
>
> So while it would be great to show outgoing engagement from the members to
> reach out with some efforts, this should not be seen as "reparation" or
> "obligation". I think it is a very asymmetrical approach to think in those
> terms.
>
> It's one thing to react to concerns of people who feel one way and very
> different to be "responsible for damage" (which reparation is basically
> about).
> I think that this makes sense logically. Unfortunately, neither laws nor social normative always follow mathematical precision :(
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:20 AM Walter Cameron <
> walter.lists@waltercameron.com> wrote:
>
> > > members of the Apache Nation (defined by the eight tribes)
> >
> > Choosing to use federal recognition as the litmus test for eligibility will
> > exclude many impacted by ASF’s appropriation of the term.
> >
> > There are also state recognized tribes such as the Choctaw-Apache Community
> > of Ebarb who don’t yet have federal recognition. It’s also important to
> > keep in mind that many Native people live in Native communities and are
> > affected by such labels and stereotyping but for whatever reasons might not
> > be officially enrolled in their tribe.
> >
> > Any sort of criteria for determining eligibility for reparations should be
> > as broad as possible.
> >
> > I would also like to echo Ed’s warnings of the risks of time here. As we
> > are not Apache people ourselves, we are just a bunch of people that signed
> > up for a mailing list, we are not as attuned to the use of the term and how
> > people respond to it.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the
> > > category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between
> > > disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem
> > > exists w/ the specific tribe.)
> > >
> > > Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they
> > > have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We
> > > do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship)
> > > is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more
> > > steps/milestones if we do define a problem.
> > >
> > > I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the
> > > Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF.
> > >
> > > Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a
> > > disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit).
> > >
> > > ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation
> > > other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is
> > > where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella
> > of
> > > the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are
> > > against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I
> > > share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely
> > > offensive.
> > >
> > > It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today
> > > might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction
> > that
> > > no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values.
> > >
> > > I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that
> > > allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I
> > > personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to
> > > be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you
> > consider
> > > that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the
> > > reciprocal of tribalism)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48
> > > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Subject: A way to keep the name
> > >
> > > Hi, all.
> > >
> > > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> > > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> > > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> > >
> > > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> > > Nation
> > > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> > > Such
> > > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> > > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > > England to describe a nominal rent.
> > >
> > > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> > > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> > >
> > > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> > > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> > >
> > > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
> > >
> > > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> > >
> > > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> > > tossed
> > > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> > >
> > > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> > > as
> > > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> > > of
> > > the Apache Nation.
> > >
> > > a
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:54 PM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
>
> I think it's a good idea to make such a fund or simply make sure that
> existing efforts (TAC, Outreachy engagement) have some deliberate and
> conscious actions in this direction - knowing the past association - and
> showing the respect and following the original mindset of people who
> created the foundation.
> I want to re-iterate that we have to proceed with caution here. We’re making assumptions based on western culture and values. The way funds are made available has to be approached carefully. A scholarship or social award might be more diplomatic? I can’t speak for the Apache, but I can re-iterate that trying this w/ some nations is going to be received as offensive.
>
>
>
> Just one comment here - I stated my opinion in the member's discussions -
> that's my personal view of course, that there is nothing to repair as there
> is no damage and simply de-association of Apache name while also showing
> the respect and engage community to actively work on de-associating is a
> better way of handling the issue than any repair.
> How do we know that there is no damage or repair until we speak with them?
>
>
>
> Using the word "reparation" here is certainly not the one I'd use. It might
> be good will and sign of respect, but in no-way it should bring any
> obligation on the ASF.
>
> If I see "Association with permission" is extremely dangerous for the
> foundation that worked 20 years on the brand being it's most valuable asset
> (without the real piggy-backing on the Apache Tribe in order to build the
> reputation). Just having "permission" from others on the important asset of
> the ASF foundation brand depending on non-member decisions might also be
> illegal from the foundation bylaws (I am not a lawyer and certainly do not
> know much about US law). This would basically mean that we put the fate of
> the foundation in the hands of non-members.
>
>
> I don’t mean to nudge here, but I’m going to.
>
> I want to be very open that I don’t necessarily agree with the “change the name at all costs approach”. Maybe I’m naive, but I find a romantic element to having organizations that can share a name with a group of people that represents the characteristics of those people, while maintaining a consistent responsibility to represent them cooperatively.
>
> That said, I also recognize we live in a polarizing social climate, so I feel it is a responsible direction to hear the tribe and hear what they have to say to determine if a problem exists. My only caution with the approach is that it is temporary. We could find out it doesn’t bother anyone today, only to have it revisited in X amount of time to find that it is no longer acceptable. I don’t personally understand the problem well enough to know what the degree or stability of those relationships and perceptions are.
>
> I understand the apprehension to the word “permission’. If I can put this in radical terms, how would you feel if I started a software foundation called the Jarek Potiuk foundation?
> Then I would create a name page similar to https://www.apache.org/apache-name/ Most of the verbiage would be respectful, and would pay homage to an inspiring colleague “Jarek Potiuk"
>
> Then in some fashion like this -> As the Apache HTTP Server grew from patches applied to the NCSA Server, a pun on the name quickly spread amongst members of the community, with the rumor being that “Apache” actually stood for “a ‘patchy’ server”. As time passed, the popularity of the “A Patchy Server” story grew: rumor became lore, and lore became legend.
>
> I would write… "as an open source project, each of us brought our own spice to the software, very much like a ‘potluck’ dish. Given the similarities in the name we called it internally a “Potluck Foundation”…etc.
>
> Maybe you are ok with it. Maybe not. Maybe your family and descendants aren’t ok with it later. Either way, that is your name, and you have every right in this country (US) to tell us not to use it. If we don’t comply, and you sue us, we can lose the right to use the name as well as be penalized financially. (Apologies if this offends. I’m trying to demonstrate a parallel.)
>
> There is a causal relationship between the foundation’s name and the Apache people based on the link provided above.
>
> What I’m going to suggest as the following is an extreme case. However, it can’t be ignored. There is legal precedent for companies being sued in the United States over the use of tribal names. (One that immediately comes to mind is the Allergan case. They paid an annual $15 million dollar royalty to a Mohawk nation while the patents remained valid, as well as handed over those patents to the tribe. I believe Apple and Google have also both been sued in similar cases.)
>
> As an open source body with no revenue, the common alternative is a cease and desist suit.
The risk level of this was assessed in the past. With my VP Legal hat
on we can do a reassessment now to understand what it is.
This is NOT to distract from the argument that is going on on this
list right now.
Thanks,
Roman.
> I’m not a lawyer either, but I have had to be involved in the process of recording patents and study of infringement cases (simply as part of being a chief technologist/architect). What would be the impact of a cease and desist suit against the Apache trademark? How would this impact the Apache License? I believe the projects under the license numbers in the tens of thousands.
>
> Email is terrible for tone, so let me call out that I’m not suggesting this with a “sky is falling, doom and gloom” angle. I’m trying to bring forth that this risk exists one way or another as long as we continue to use the “Apache” name and brand.
>
> It may be worth the effort to perform due diligence in this regard.
>
>
>
> So while it would be great to show outgoing engagement from the members to
> reach out with some efforts, this should not be seen as "reparation" or
> "obligation". I think it is a very asymmetrical approach to think in those
> terms.
>
> It's one thing to react to concerns of people who feel one way and very
> different to be "responsible for damage" (which reparation is basically
> about).
> I think that this makes sense logically. Unfortunately, neither laws nor social normative always follow mathematical precision :(
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:20 AM Walter Cameron <
> walter.lists@waltercameron.com> wrote:
>
> > > members of the Apache Nation (defined by the eight tribes)
> >
> > Choosing to use federal recognition as the litmus test for eligibility will
> > exclude many impacted by ASF’s appropriation of the term.
> >
> > There are also state recognized tribes such as the Choctaw-Apache Community
> > of Ebarb who don’t yet have federal recognition. It’s also important to
> > keep in mind that many Native people live in Native communities and are
> > affected by such labels and stereotyping but for whatever reasons might not
> > be officially enrolled in their tribe.
> >
> > Any sort of criteria for determining eligibility for reparations should be
> > as broad as possible.
> >
> > I would also like to echo Ed’s warnings of the risks of time here. As we
> > are not Apache people ourselves, we are just a bunch of people that signed
> > up for a mailing list, we are not as attuned to the use of the term and how
> > people respond to it.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the
> > > category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between
> > > disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem
> > > exists w/ the specific tribe.)
> > >
> > > Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they
> > > have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We
> > > do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship)
> > > is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more
> > > steps/milestones if we do define a problem.
> > >
> > > I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the
> > > Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF.
> > >
> > > Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a
> > > disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit).
> > >
> > > ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation
> > > other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is
> > > where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella
> > of
> > > the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are
> > > against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I
> > > share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely
> > > offensive.
> > >
> > > It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today
> > > might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction
> > that
> > > no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values.
> > >
> > > I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that
> > > allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I
> > > personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to
> > > be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you
> > consider
> > > that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the
> > > reciprocal of tribalism)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48
> > > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > > Subject: A way to keep the name
> > >
> > > Hi, all.
> > >
> > > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> > > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> > > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> > >
> > > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> > > Nation
> > > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> > > Such
> > > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> > > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > > England to describe a nominal rent.
> > >
> > > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> > > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> > >
> > > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> > > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> > >
> > > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
> > >
> > > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> > >
> > > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> > > tossed
> > > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> > >
> > > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> > > as
> > > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> > > of
> > > the Apache Nation.
> > >
> > > a
> > > --
> > > Andrew Wetmore
> > >
> > > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
Subject: Re: A way to keep the name
I think it's a good idea to make such a fund or simply make sure that
existing efforts (TAC, Outreachy engagement) have some deliberate and
conscious actions in this direction - knowing the past association - and
showing the respect and following the original mindset of people who
created the foundation.
I want to re-iterate that we have to proceed with caution here. We’re making assumptions based on western culture and values. The way funds are made available has to be approached carefully. A scholarship or social award might be more diplomatic? I can’t speak for the Apache, but I can re-iterate that trying this w/ some nations is going to be received as offensive.
Just one comment here - I stated my opinion in the member's discussions -
that's my personal view of course, that there is nothing to repair as there
is no damage and simply de-association of Apache name while also showing
the respect and engage community to actively work on de-associating is a
better way of handling the issue than any repair.
How do we know that there is no damage or repair until we speak with them?
Using the word "reparation" here is certainly not the one I'd use. It might
be good will and sign of respect, but in no-way it should bring any
obligation on the ASF.
If I see "Association with permission" is extremely dangerous for the
foundation that worked 20 years on the brand being it's most valuable asset
(without the real piggy-backing on the Apache Tribe in order to build the
reputation). Just having "permission" from others on the important asset of
the ASF foundation brand depending on non-member decisions might also be
illegal from the foundation bylaws (I am not a lawyer and certainly do not
know much about US law). This would basically mean that we put the fate of
the foundation in the hands of non-members.
I don’t mean to nudge here, but I’m going to.
I want to be very open that I don’t necessarily agree with the “change the name at all costs approach”. Maybe I’m naive, but I find a romantic element to having organizations that can share a name with a group of people that represents the characteristics of those people, while maintaining a consistent responsibility to represent them cooperatively.
That said, I also recognize we live in a polarizing social climate, so I feel it is a responsible direction to hear the tribe and hear what they have to say to determine if a problem exists. My only caution with the approach is that it is temporary. We could find out it doesn’t bother anyone today, only to have it revisited in X amount of time to find that it is no longer acceptable. I don’t personally understand the problem well enough to know what the degree or stability of those relationships and perceptions are.
I understand the apprehension to the word “permission’. If I can put this in radical terms, how would you feel if I started a software foundation called the Jarek Potiuk foundation?
Then I would create a name page similar to https://www.apache.org/apache-name/ Most of the verbiage would be respectful, and would pay homage to an inspiring colleague “Jarek Potiuk"
Then in some fashion like this -> As the Apache HTTP Server grew from patches applied to the NCSA Server, a pun on the name quickly spread amongst members of the community, with the rumor being that “Apache” actually stood for “a ‘patchy’ server”. As time passed, the popularity of the “A Patchy Server” story grew: rumor became lore, and lore became legend.
I would write… "as an open source project, each of us brought our own spice to the software, very much like a ‘potluck’ dish. Given the similarities in the name we called it internally a “Potluck Foundation”…etc.
Maybe you are ok with it. Maybe not. Maybe your family and descendants aren’t ok with it later. Either way, that is your name, and you have every right in this country (US) to tell us not to use it. If we don’t comply, and you sue us, we can lose the right to use the name as well as be penalized financially. (Apologies if this offends. I’m trying to demonstrate a parallel.)
There is a causal relationship between the foundation’s name and the Apache people based on the link provided above.
What I’m going to suggest as the following is an extreme case. However, it can’t be ignored. There is legal precedent for companies being sued in the United States over the use of tribal names. (One that immediately comes to mind is the Allergan case. They paid an annual $15 million dollar royalty to a Mohawk nation while the patents remained valid, as well as handed over those patents to the tribe. I believe Apple and Google have also both been sued in similar cases.)
As an open source body with no revenue, the common alternative is a cease and desist suit.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I have had to be involved in the process of recording patents and study of infringement cases (simply as part of being a chief technologist/architect). What would be the impact of a cease and desist suit against the Apache trademark? How would this impact the Apache License? I believe the projects under the license numbers in the tens of thousands.
Email is terrible for tone, so let me call out that I’m not suggesting this with a “sky is falling, doom and gloom” angle. I’m trying to bring forth that this risk exists one way or another as long as we continue to use the “Apache” name and brand.
It may be worth the effort to perform due diligence in this regard.
So while it would be great to show outgoing engagement from the members to
reach out with some efforts, this should not be seen as "reparation" or
"obligation". I think it is a very asymmetrical approach to think in those
terms.
It's one thing to react to concerns of people who feel one way and very
different to be "responsible for damage" (which reparation is basically
about).
I think that this makes sense logically. Unfortunately, neither laws nor social normative always follow mathematical precision :(
J.
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:20 AM Walter Cameron <
walter.lists@waltercameron.com> wrote:
> > members of the Apache Nation (defined by the eight tribes)
>
> Choosing to use federal recognition as the litmus test for eligibility will
> exclude many impacted by ASF’s appropriation of the term.
>
> There are also state recognized tribes such as the Choctaw-Apache Community
> of Ebarb who don’t yet have federal recognition. It’s also important to
> keep in mind that many Native people live in Native communities and are
> affected by such labels and stereotyping but for whatever reasons might not
> be officially enrolled in their tribe.
>
> Any sort of criteria for determining eligibility for reparations should be
> as broad as possible.
>
> I would also like to echo Ed’s warnings of the risks of time here. As we
> are not Apache people ourselves, we are just a bunch of people that signed
> up for a mailing list, we are not as attuned to the use of the term and how
> people respond to it.
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> > This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the
> > category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between
> > disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem
> > exists w/ the specific tribe.)
> >
> > Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they
> > have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We
> > do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship)
> > is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more
> > steps/milestones if we do define a problem.
> >
> > I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the
> > Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF.
> >
> > Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a
> > disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit).
> >
> > ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation
> > other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is
> > where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella
> of
> > the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are
> > against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I
> > share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely
> > offensive.
> >
> > It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today
> > might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction
> that
> > no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values.
> >
> > I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that
> > allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I
> > personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to
> > be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you
> consider
> > that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the
> > reciprocal of tribalism)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48
> > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Subject: A way to keep the name
> >
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> >
> > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> > Nation
> > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> > Such
> > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > England to describe a nominal rent.
> >
> > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> >
> > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> >
> > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
> >
> > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> >
> > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> > tossed
> > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> >
> > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> > as
> > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> > of
> > the Apache Nation.
> >
> > a
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> >
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>.
I think it's a good idea to make such a fund or simply make sure that
existing efforts (TAC, Outreachy engagement) have some deliberate and
conscious actions in this direction - knowing the past association - and
showing the respect and following the original mindset of people who
created the foundation.
Just one comment here - I stated my opinion in the member's discussions -
that's my personal view of course, that there is nothing to repair as there
is no damage and simply de-association of Apache name while also showing
the respect and engage community to actively work on de-associating is a
better way of handling the issue than any repair.
Using the word "reparation" here is certainly not the one I'd use. It might
be good will and sign of respect, but in no-way it should bring any
obligation on the ASF.
If I see "Association with permission" is extremely dangerous for the
foundation that worked 20 years on the brand being it's most valuable asset
(without the real piggy-backing on the Apache Tribe in order to build the
reputation). Just having "permission" from others on the important asset of
the ASF foundation brand depending on non-member decisions might also be
illegal from the foundation bylaws (I am not a lawyer and certainly do not
know much about US law). This would basically mean that we put the fate of
the foundation in the hands of non-members.
So while it would be great to show outgoing engagement from the members to
reach out with some efforts, this should not be seen as "reparation" or
"obligation". I think it is a very asymmetrical approach to think in those
terms.
It's one thing to react to concerns of people who feel one way and very
different to be "responsible for damage" (which reparation is basically
about).
J.
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 6:20 AM Walter Cameron <
walter.lists@waltercameron.com> wrote:
> > members of the Apache Nation (defined by the eight tribes)
>
> Choosing to use federal recognition as the litmus test for eligibility will
> exclude many impacted by ASF’s appropriation of the term.
>
> There are also state recognized tribes such as the Choctaw-Apache Community
> of Ebarb who don’t yet have federal recognition. It’s also important to
> keep in mind that many Native people live in Native communities and are
> affected by such labels and stereotyping but for whatever reasons might not
> be officially enrolled in their tribe.
>
> Any sort of criteria for determining eligibility for reparations should be
> as broad as possible.
>
> I would also like to echo Ed’s warnings of the risks of time here. As we
> are not Apache people ourselves, we are just a bunch of people that signed
> up for a mailing list, we are not as attuned to the use of the term and how
> people respond to it.
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
>
> > This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the
> > category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between
> > disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem
> > exists w/ the specific tribe.)
> >
> > Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they
> > have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We
> > do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship)
> > is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more
> > steps/milestones if we do define a problem.
> >
> > I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the
> > Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF.
> >
> > Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a
> > disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit).
> >
> > ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation
> > other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is
> > where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella
> of
> > the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are
> > against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I
> > share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely
> > offensive.
> >
> > It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today
> > might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction
> that
> > no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values.
> >
> > I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that
> > allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I
> > personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to
> > be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you
> consider
> > that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the
> > reciprocal of tribalism)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48
> > To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> > Subject: A way to keep the name
> >
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> > foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> > back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
> >
> > What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> > Nation
> > (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> > perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> > Such
> > a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> > useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> > England to describe a nominal rent.
> >
> > The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> > made available to members of the Apache Nation:
> >
> > - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> > - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> > - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> > or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
> >
> > On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
> >
> > - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> > - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
> >
> > Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> > tossed
> > into the ring. Please suggest them.
> >
> > This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> > as
> > we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> > of
> > the Apache Nation.
> >
> > a
> > --
> > Andrew Wetmore
> >
> > Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> > Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
> >
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by Walter Cameron <wa...@waltercameron.com>.
> members of the Apache Nation (defined by the eight tribes)
Choosing to use federal recognition as the litmus test for eligibility will
exclude many impacted by ASF’s appropriation of the term.
There are also state recognized tribes such as the Choctaw-Apache Community
of Ebarb who don’t yet have federal recognition. It’s also important to
keep in mind that many Native people live in Native communities and are
affected by such labels and stereotyping but for whatever reasons might not
be officially enrolled in their tribe.
Any sort of criteria for determining eligibility for reparations should be
as broad as possible.
I would also like to echo Ed’s warnings of the risks of time here. As we
are not Apache people ourselves, we are just a bunch of people that signed
up for a mailing list, we are not as attuned to the use of the term and how
people respond to it.
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM me <me...@emangini.com> wrote:
> This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the
> category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between
> disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem
> exists w/ the specific tribe.)
>
> Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they
> have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We
> do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship)
> is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more
> steps/milestones if we do define a problem.
>
> I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the
> Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF.
>
> Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a
> disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit).
>
> ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation
> other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is
> where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella of
> the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are
> against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I
> share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely
> offensive.
>
> It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today
> might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction that
> no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values.
>
> I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that
> allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I
> personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to
> be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you consider
> that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the
> reciprocal of tribalism)
>
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48
> To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
> Subject: A way to keep the name
>
> Hi, all.
>
> We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
> foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
> back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
>
> What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache
> Nation
> (defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
> perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs?
> Such
> a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
> useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
> England to describe a nominal rent.
>
> The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
> made available to members of the Apache Nation:
>
> - travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
> - advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
> - assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
> or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
>
> On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
>
> - a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
> - internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
>
> Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just
> tossed
> into the ring. Please suggest them.
>
> This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative,
> as
> we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people
> of
> the Apache Nation.
>
> a
> --
> Andrew Wetmore
>
> Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
> Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>
>
Re: A way to keep the name
Posted by me <me...@emangini.com>.
This was somewhat covered (at a much higher level). This falls into the category of ‘association with permission’. It’s somewhere between disassociation and what Jeep is doing (which is to determine if a problem exists w/ the specific tribe.)
Each circumstance is unique. I looked through Jeep’s materials, and they have no documentation that links them directly to the Cherokee nation. We do. With such an explicit relationship, perception (of that relationship) is fairly black and white. On the flip side, it does give us more steps/milestones if we do define a problem.
I think what is challenging to communicate is the difference between the Washington/Cleveland sports team cases, and Jeep/ASF.
Washington/Cleveland is cut and dry, because their mascots were a disparaging term. (i.e. like Esk*mo is to the Inuit).
ASF/Jeep are using a tribe name, which w/o context has no connotation other than an identifier. However, the usage and context of the name is where perception comes in. Once we start doing things under the umbrella of the name, there is an association or linkage. If the tribal nations are against what we “do”, based on values of some tribes (at least the ones I share DNA with), trying to “buy” the name may be considered extremely offensive.
It’s also worth considering that it is an ongoing risk. What is ok today might not be tomorrow. It’s entirely possible that we take a direction that no longer aligns with what the nations consider acceptable values.
I would love to see some form of positive relationship fostered that allows an organization to create a respectful relationship (maybe us!). I personally find that to be a more interesting direction than we appear to be headed globally. (I suppose this is incredibly ironic when you consider that I’m proposing social unification which is often considered to be the reciprocal of tribalism)
From: Andrew Wetmore <co...@gmail.com>
Reply: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48
To: dev@community.apache.org <de...@community.apache.org>
Subject: A way to keep the name
Hi, all.
We have a very long thread on the possibility of changing the name of our
foundation, and the complex work involved. I may have missed it in the
back-and-forth, but is there not another way forward?
What if we established an offering of value to members of the Apache Nation
(defined by the eight tribes) that attaches a benefit to the existing
perceived connection between our use of the word "Apache" and theirs? Such
a package could start small, but grow toward something that is much more
useful than the "one peppercorn per annum" which is the legal term in
England to describe a nominal rent.
The package could begin with elements that we already have in our hands
made available to members of the Apache Nation:
- travel assistance to attend ApacheCon
- advanced access to the Google Summer of Code
- assistance within our realms of expertise with technical infrastructure
or code-development issues the Apache Nation faces
On such a basis we could solicit additional "goods" to grow the package:
- a scholarship fund to enable study in software development
- internships with corporations that are ASF sponsors
Others among you will have much better ideas than those I have just tossed
into the ring. Please suggest them.
This approach makes a positive out of what some perceive as a negative, as
we grow a coincidental relationship into one of real value to the people of
the Apache Nation.
a
--
Andrew Wetmore
Editor, Moose House Publications <https://moosehousepress.com/>
Editor-Writer, The Apache Software Foundation <https://apache.org/>