IMHO before coming for Apache Software Foundation you should come for more serious folks like Boeing and Raytheon

[KOLANICH]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

[skaficianado]

I had no idea Boeing and Raytheon were indigenous cultures.

[grobmeier]

I think the "Natives in tech" group should decide on what naming issues are more pressing to them and resolve those first. The term "apache" is very popular, more than Boeing, so I guess it just makes sense to work on this first.

[ssb22]

@grobmeier I believe @KOLANICH's concern was not about the name "Boeing", but about one of their products being called "Apache". However, this product was commissioned by the US military, which apparently has a working relationship with Indigenous communities regarding the naming of their helicopters.

[cloud65]

Dangerous. Corporations can and fuck send.

[ssb22]

From the GitHub Community Guidelines, "Be open to other ideas and experience levels. Make room for opinions other than your own and be welcoming to new collaborators and those just getting started." and "Try to put yourself in others’ shoes and understand their feelings before you address them."

If American Indians, on first learning how to code and what free software is, see the Apache Software Foundation and think "ouch, they're misappropriating from 8 Apache nations", then that is a bug. It was never the intent of the Free Software community or the Apache Software Foundation to cause that thought instead of to be welcoming to new coders. If we are discussing what is the best way for the community to fix or work around this bug, it is not helpful to use strong language or to imply Natives In Tech are asking for more than what they are actually asking for (as I understand it they are not aiming for any kind of legal action against Apache Software Foundation).

It is understandable cloud65 may feel frustrated if they mistakenly thought this was a legal challenge to the free software community on behalf of corporations. Perhaps that misunderstanding was due to some kind of mistranslation into Russian.

[KOLANICH]

@ssb22,

1. Discussions about feelings and reasoning behind this petition is IMHO offtop in this issue. This issue deals mainly with the thing when in the almost the same situation, where big corporations do the same, and even worse, which products are much more famous than products of ASF, which are mostly known to people who are in IT, while the names of the military devices are known to almost everyone among not only IT folks, but also among ordinary people, because they are geopolitics-related and so news about them are often used in propaganda, but the target to be attacked was chosen not them, but a non-profit organization with moderate budgets and limited capabilities to defend itself.
2. I have an own opinion about whether this petition makes any sense or not, why it was created, and how ASF should react on it, but it is also an offtop in this issue.
3. The text in @cloud65's message is really bad, looks like a disconnected set of words, but being a Russian myself and knowing how Russian obscene language is usually (and not very literally correctly) translated into English, I think I get what he wants to say: that big corporations like Boeing, Rayteon, Volkswagen, Stellantis and so on can afford to reject the proposal and tolerate the consequencies. It was one of the rationale to create this issue. I think it is an undeclared conflict of interests (if this petition fails, the public image of everyone who has signed it will be harmed, if it suceeds, the self-image of them is improved, so they have a conflict of interst between risking to harm an own public image, wanting to improve a self-image, and fulfilling the declared goal - elimination of usage a stereotypical images of people of certain nationalities in products as the ones promoting the images that can be non-matching the reality), to choose a target based on it having lesser capability to defend itself. If it is not the goal, but the goal is to target ASF specifically, that becomes even worse, because targetting ASF specifically is discrimination against ASF specifically. If one has such a large goal as eliminating promoting caricatural stereotypes, one should target not only the ones he has any chance to coerce, but everyone considered doing the inacceptable thing. Otherwise the motivation of the ones doing that thing feels insincere.

In other words, if you really want to defend the minority folks of something

1. Found an organization
2. write the broad goal into its founding documents
3. One cannot defend rights of people without asking those people consent en masse and getting the approval of their supermajority for that. You would have to define which people have a right to vote and which don't. And this definition must not discriminate against some part of those people. You would have to conduct polls to design the questions in the voting ballots properly within the people you want to defend. You would have to conduct voting. And the voting should be conducted transparently and verifiebly, the questions asked there must be non-manipulating and people asked must fully understand the meaning of the answers and consequencies of the answers being considered passed. A state of the art voting system should be used.
4. write the documents defining specifically what it considers OK and what it considers not based on the results of voting. These must be the documents according to which the org must act. The documents must not allow discrimination.
5. Do a voting and get the supermajority accepting the documents.
6. Act according to the documents.

Did you expect that really protecting people rights is as easy as just signing a petition against the ones who are kinda weak and without even asking those people if they really need the "protection"?

[ssb22]

Thanks. I'd very much like to see all the militaries shut down and no more war. Unfortunately I can't fix that. But I can fix more minor bugs in software. I don't think it's fair to reply to a bug report by saying "it's not as bad as what the military does"—correct, but does that mean we free software developers shouldn't try to fix what we can in our software? I'm not signing the petition myself (I'm not sure it's the best solution), but I did try to reply to cloud65 seeming to misunderstand Natives In Tech as 'attacking' the Apache Software Foundation, when actually Natives In Tech are trying to raise a concern they have within the framework of community discussion and ASF's code of conduct—their concerns should be treated respectfully, even if their proposed solution is not the best solution.

[KOLANICH]

But I can fix more minor bugs in software. I don't think it's fair to reply to a bug report by saying "it's not as bad as what the military does"—correct

It's not only about military, military contractors were just examples of tough folks, there exist, for example, Jeep Cherokee, and it is likely that Stellantis won't change their trademark just to please the people who demand it to be changed. And if those people try to force it via a lawsuit, the process will likely be long and exhausting, and it is likely they will lose it. And just asking tough folks to change their trademarks and seeing the ask was ignored will feel humilating. That's why instead of targetting tough folks the ones that are less tough were targetted, that cannot afford to ignore this petition. Demonstrating, that the initiators of the petition don't feel the real force behind them, undermines the credibility of the whole petition. If ones are afraid to risk their reputation in order to do the things, they claim as the one, that relally have to be done, in order to make the most of the ethnic groups they try to protect to feel not harrassed, maybe it is not that the whole ethnic group is behind them? Signing petitions is as cheap as making a commit, words cost nothjng, but really protecting rights requires real force. And in order to get the force one need the real people to be behind you. If the rights are really violated, there will be force. But the creators of the petition IMHO have failed to demonstrate that there is any real force behind them, that their "protection" is really needed by Apache people.

but does that mean we free software developers shouldn't try to fix what we can in our software?

Are the projects maintained by ASF your software? ASF are just maintainers. The software maintained there is under a permissive license, that makes it kinda public good, in other words, "noone's" and "everyone's" at the same time. Everyone can use it, everyone can modify it. The forks (even the original can be considered a copy of itself, even the upstream can be considered a fork of itself) maintained there is the forks under their maintainment. If they had been the forks under your maintainment, you could have changed the name on your own (though doing sucn things without a proper procedure in large projects is still inacceptable) and so this petition wouldn't have existed.

BTW there is a real way for the signatories of the petition to put something at stake except the cheap words. For example they can make a public cryptographically-signed pledge that

1. they will never use any product of any org having the word matching a name of any tribes (with the list of these names) in its trademarks. Yes, flying by Boeing airplanes also counts. And so does using an OS installation where any of Apache libs are installed, even as indirect dependencies.
2. If someone spots them doing that (i.e. by using an OS depending on any of the libs ), they must pay every such person some money. If a superior army officer orders them to fly by an Apache helicopter, they of course can choose to obey the order, but will have to pay money to everyone knowing about it. If the boss orders them to use such a dependency in a FOSS project, they will likely have to resign from such a company.

So instead of hype-like petitions that cost nothing to sign they have an opportunity to proove they really feel the force behind them.

[ssb22]

Jeep Cherokee: they're having that argument already and apparently winning.

Yes, Apache Software Foundation might want to say they won't talk about changing their name with just any group of Native Americans unless they're leaders of Apache nations. Putting out a statement that they are willing to talk with leaders of Apache nations (and acknowledge those nations by explicitly listing them), might serve to reassure Indigenous coders in the meantime. That might be one way ASF could solve this problem.

Me—I've not made major contributions to ASF-maintained projects, but I do have a couple of dozen projects of my own that use the Apache license, plus some of my stuff depends on libraries that are Apache-licenced, so I can (weakly) include myself when saying can "we" do anything to accommodate the needs of Native Americans. (Other than rewrite all my stuff to avoid anything to do with Apache, which will be way too much work sorry.)

I'm not convinced a petition is the correct solution. I'm even less convinced a money-backed pledge of avoidance is the correct solution. But it would still be nice if ASF could fix this bug somehow (an acceptably-worded statement perhaps).

[KOLANICH]

leaders of Apache nations

IMHO leaders have no right to decide for all the people.

[ssb22]

That may be true, but in the other disputes (Cherokee etc) the leader represented the nation, so presumably we can't change that now. ASF saying they'd talk to leaders would at least be reassurance to Indigenous developers that they're not being ignored (and it might be some time before any Apache nation actually wants to talk to ASF).

[KOLANICH]

Again, a leader cannot represent people in any decision, unless if he/she just voices the consensual position of those people got via a proper democratic procedure. But if the position can be got via the procedure, there is no real need for a leader to voice it, the mere fact it is generated via a proper procedure is enough. Don't pretend that conflicts of interests don't exist. They exist in every organization, be it a nation-state, an NGO or a corporation. One of the worst resolutions of the situation I can imagine is that a chief can just demand a certain payment for publicly declaring on behalf of the tribe that the people of it have no objections. If one assummes that use of the name violates dignity of people of the tribe, giving authority to a chief to sell the dignity of every man in a tribe for something, feels immoral, especially to the people who are not ready to sell their dignity at any price. And especially immoral is giving a chief opportunity to gain something for himself personally (chiefs are often in control of tribe assets, even if the asset is formally owned by a tribe, it doesn't mean it serves every man in a tribe, not just its elite) by selling dignity of people in tribe for that. If one assummes it doesn't violate dignjty of people of the tribe, there is no reason to restrict use of the word. If someone just wants to give Apaches an opportunity to extract revenue this way .... then it is just an issue related to business interests and it is their problem to sue ASF, and there is no need to involve the community into supporting plaintiffs in lawsuits related to IP. If AFS just uses drawings having nonsense ... well, it can look funny (the same way the Russian passport in Bourne Identity looks funny because the part where the name must be contains a nonsense combination of letters, and because Cyrillics is in large part based on greek letters (and everyone who had a uni education should have known at least a bit of them), in principle film authors didn't even have to know Russian alphabet in order to write it right or even to notice the nonsense in it doesn't match the text saying the same in Latin), but it kay be in the best interests of ASF to fix it in order to not just look like the authors of B. I. looked, and it also may be in the interests of the people of the tribe to promote accurate representation of their culture, that for example can raise more interest in their culture.

[ssb22]

OK, so if ASF says it's willing to talk with leaders of Apache nations, maybe ASF can also commit to not bribing them.

[wcameron]

The simple reason this project is focused on ASF and not Boeing or Stellantis is that web development is the industry I earn my living in and I feel I understand the issues enough to speak up about them.

If you know of a bigger example of mascotry in computing I’m open to suggestions. Projects like Yupiik, the Hiawatha web server, Cherokee web server, etc are all derivative of ASF’s mascotry and they’re all much smaller, much less influential organizations.

As has been pointed out ASF isn’t unique in having its appropriation challenged. Sports teams, commercial products and many organizations have rebranded out a growing understanding of the harms of mascotry. A really excellent article and resource by the Jim Crow Museum that I didn’t link to on the website is: https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/native/homepage.htm and is worth a read to understand more of the history and context around this issue.

[KOLANICH]

Why should they say they are willing to talk to the leaders who cannot really represent whole A. people because there was no decision made via a proper procedure those leaders must voice? Currently the authors of the petition have brought no evidence that Apache people really feel their dignity harmed by use their name and graphics symbolysing them by ASF, and not the opposite, that using the name of them and the graphics symbolysing them in such a prominent software as Apache httpd gives them a honor and popularizes their culture. The initiative seems to be originating not from Apache people, but from an organization made mostly of non-Apache people, that cannot represent Apache people. Who are the authors of the petition to demand anything of ASF? Why should ASF give any guarantees to someone random? Why not to find a first random homeless person met near ASF headquarters and not to give some guarantees to him, "for Good", then?

[ssb22]

It's a bug if Native Americans of any tribe feel that Native American culture is being misappropriated by the ASF. In response to this bug, the ASF could:

1. Do nothing (won't-fix), which is not great for natives in tech of any tribe who feel bad things are happening,

2. Unilaterally rename itself as requested, without waiting for confirmation from actual Apache peoples (potentially disruptive + potentially bad for Apache peoples if they decided ASF's name-sharing is positive for them), or

3. Don't rename itself yet, but do make changes to its public statements to show more willingness to accommodate the needs of Apache peoples, so that at least Indigenous peoples of all tribes are more reassured that they're not dealing with an organisation that ignores the needs of Indigenous peoples.

It's not just about the name. It might be something to do with the graphics, like the way the feather is used (I don't know how they feel about feathers, but it might not be what we think). There might be a solution along the lines of "OK to keep the name if you change this graphic and that sentence". I don't know. The point was ASF could say they'd be open to discussion. The exact implementation details of that discussion might have to be worked out later.

[KOLANICH]

It's a bug if
if

If a grandma had ****, she would have been a granddad.

the proverb says. It is not ASF who is supposed to bring proofs, but the ones who claim it is really a bug.

The point was ASF could say they'd be open to discussion.

Open to discussions to whom? To randos who demand something on behalf of other people using online hype as a pressure measure? Or to the people who don't even bother to demand that themselves?

The exact implementation details of that discussion might have to be worked out later.

What you suggest ASF to do is to admit that the bug exists, without any evidence it really exists, and leave space to arbitrarily change its description. After that one can change the bug reports into impudent demands and then claim that ASF has already admitted that they must follow the demands, and if ASF rejected, one can use this claim as an additional lever in a media campaign to coerce ASF. It'd have been a mistake to aggree that a bug exists before the evidence is brought and bug scope is defined. It is the ones who claim that the bug exists must bring evidence.

[ssb22]

The existence of this repository is evidence that at least some Native Americans are not happy with the way ASF is presenting itself.

Saying you'd be willing to talk with Apache nations is not committing yourself to doing everything the Apache nations might ask for, but it still signals some respect. This might fix "we don't yet know how actual Apaches feel, but other Native Americans are worried ASF will ignore Apache nations" which is the bug we have at present.

[KOLANICH]

at least some Native Americans

They are not a proper representation of Apache people. I have already given the approximate guidelines on what should be done to collect the evidence about feelings of real Apache people, not the models of them in the minds of the ones who try to protect the rights of people without involvement of those people en masse.

but other Native Americans are worried

It's their own problems. They are not a proper representation of Apache people, they shouldn't demand on behalf of Apache people. If they can, it means that any few homeless men can assemble, find a scrap of paper and a pen in a dumpster, and go and demand on behalf of all Apaches, all Americans, all Russians, all winners of lotteries in US, and so on. In this purely hypothetical situation does ASF need to promise to a flock of homeless people who claim they act on behalf of people of Russia that ASF management will talk to Putin about the claims? I think, of course no. How are IT folks so exceptional that they think they can demand the privileges that other US citizens don't enjoy?

I think that without

1. a proper evidence that Apache people really feel themselves harmed;
2. without the list of what exactly Apache people consider humilating, again with the proper evidence;
3. that it is really about their dignity and not about commercial interests of someone who wants to exploit the name of the tribe to gain profit by lending/selling it (if it is the case, then it must be decided in courts, not via community pressure and "cancelling").

I'm not a lawyer and not your or anyone else attorney, but I guess if the authors of the petition really feel the force behind them, they should send a honest signal:

1. sue ASF for that (which will likely bring the tough folks on ASF side, since US law is precedental);
2. make a pledge not to use ASF products using the branding they consider as harmful;
3. do the research and bring enough evidence that their claim is real;
4. attack the tough guys capable to stand their ground with the risk of getting public humilation of the failed attempt;
5. and so on.