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.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/>
> >
>
