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.li...@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 <m...@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 <cottag...@gmail.com> > > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org> > > Date: May 4, 2022 at 14:05:48 > > To: dev@community.apache.org <dev@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/> > > >
