Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
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 <m...@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 <oru...@gmail.com> > Reply: dev@community.apache.org <dev@community.apache.org> > Date: May 6, 2022 at 12:24:54 > To: dev@community.apache.org <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 <m...@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 <m...@emangini.com> >> Reply: me <m...@emangini.com> >> Date: May 5, 2022 at 12:57:25 >> To: dev@community.apache.org <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. >> >>
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
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
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
ot 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 > &g
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
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
Re: Naming/Branding: First Steps
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. > >
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. > (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
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
