I solved this in my open source project by owning the name personally. The code is dual MIT/GPL licensed - I don’t/can’t fully control that (by design), but I unilaterally control the registered trademark. I feel this is a reasonable compromise between the reality of the legal and practical issues with trademarks, and the spirit of open source, even though you’re right, there’s a ton of power in owning the name itself. I’ve thought about writing up some permissive license/rules for trademark usage, which would allow me to relinquish some legal control there, while still ensuring good stewardship of the trademark. But it’s definitely a thin line to balance on.
Except you didn't solve it, because you owning the trademark personally is the problem that's being complained about
Nothing can solve some people choosing to complain when someone else who owns a decision makes a decision they don’t like.
That just means a different set of people can get stuck having to rename, i.e. whatever group doesn't include you. How confident are you that (assuming your project thrives) you'll be around in 10 years and have the project's best interests at heart?
Even the nicest and best people can change for the worse. One of the reasons to go for some foundation-like entity owning the name is that you can equalize out across multiple people in a meritocratic, democratic, demarchist, or whatever else process.
And even if you're incredibly sure you won't become a bad person: what happens if life hits you hard? A relative becomes disabled and you need money to care for them? Will you sell the trademark?
> I’ve thought about writing up some permissive license/rules for trademark usage
See the 'wordpress' situation for a case study ...