Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps

[Dave Fisher]

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  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 
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org 
> Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
> To: dev@community.apache.org 
> Subject:  Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps  
> 
> Bravo. Brilliant.  
> 
> 
> Owen Rubel  
> oru...@gmail.com  
> 
> 
>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me  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   
>> Reply: me   
>> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25  
>> To: dev@community.apache.org , Owen Rubel <  
>> oru...@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 me

Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps

[Walter Cameron]

> 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  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 T

Beam Summit announces workshops

[Mara Ruvalcaba]

*
*

**

*


*Beam Summit announces confirmed Workshops!*

**

**Take the opportunity to explore in-depth Apache Beam by participating 
at the workshops!


Workshops will be held on-site only on Wednesday, July 20th. Organized 
by morning and afternoon blocks, you can attend up to 2 workshops.


For participating at the workshops you need to acquire the 3 day pass. 
When registering, you will choose what workshops to attend.Remember, you 
canapply for a scholarship .


*
**Take a look at the workshops confirmed:*




   Apache Beam on Amazon Kinesis Data Analytics (KDA)
   

This workshop explores an end to end example that combines batch and 
streaming aspects in one uniform Apache Beam pipeline.





   Beam Cross Language Transforms in Python, with Google Cloud Dataflow
   

For Beam practitioners who wish to advance their knowledge of Apache 
Beam and Google Cloud Dataflow.






   Splittable DoFns in Python: a hands-on workshop
   

This workshop reviews the concept of Splittable DoFns and we will write 
two I/O connectors using this kind of DoFns: one in batch, and one for 
streaming.


**


**


   Early Bird price ends next week!
   Get your tickets for the onsite event before May 13th and obtain the
   Early Bird price + get the chance to win a $100 gift card

 *

   First 50 onsite registrations will get the chance to win a $100
   amazon gift card.

 *

   Early bird pricing for in-person passes is $290 USD for 2-day pass
   and $350 USD for 3-day pass.


   Apply for a scholarship

If you would like to attend in person but cannot afford a ticket, 
pleaseapply for a scholarship. 
Special thanks to our Diversity and 
Inclusion sponsor Maven Codefor the scholarships.


** 


   *Register Now!* 


 Why in Austin?

In Texas, more than 17,600 technology firms employ over 203,700 workers 
with companies like Apple and Wipro continuing to grow every day. The 
long-established Texas tech sector has invented everything from the 
semiconductor and hand-held calculator to a billion-dollar dating 
app. Texas is brimming with skilled talent ready to solve their next 
challenge. Tech workers are migrating to Texas at a record rate as well.


Plus, Austin has the best live music =)

*

--
Mara Ruvalcaba
COO, SG Software Guru & Nearshore Link
USA: 512 296 2884
MX: 55 5239 5502

Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps

[Jarek Potiuk]

 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  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 
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org 
> Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
> To: dev@community.apache.org 
> Subject:  Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
>
> Bravo. Brilliant.
>
>
> Owen Rubel
> oru...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me  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,

Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps

[me]

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 
Reply: dev@community.apache.org 
Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54
To: dev@community.apache.org 
Subject:  Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps  

Bravo. Brilliant.  


Owen Rubel  
oru...@gmail.com  


On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me  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   
> Reply: me   
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25  
> To: dev@community.apache.org , Owen Rubel <  
> oru...@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. 

Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps

[Owen Rubel]

Bravo. Brilliant.


Owen Rubel
oru...@gmail.com


On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 7:26 AM me  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 
> Reply: me 
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
> To: dev@community.apache.org , Owen Rubel <
> oru...@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 
> Reply: dev@community.apache.org 
> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
> To: dev@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 

Naming/Branding: First Steps

[me]

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 
Reply: me 
Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25
To: dev@community.apache.org , Owen Rubel 

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 
Reply: dev@community.apache.org 
Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:11:21
To: dev@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  
th