Every time this is posted, and this discussion happens, I am reminded to never judge a brook by its cover.

Edit: I'm going to leave that typo as is.

I have not the slightest familiarity with Bro or its competitors, and I wouldn't dream of pretending to. My comment here is entirely from the perspective of an outsider hearing about the project and trying to figure out whether learning more about it could be valuable to me.

I can see at least two very sensible ways in which the concern that I've shared here could be unimportant (and you may see others). I don't even know enough to know to what degree either applies here.

One might be if nobody but an established specialist in the field would ever have a need to assess, use, or contribute to Bro or its competitors. In that case, the negative associations with the name would be unimportant: the specialists would be fully invested in the technical details, and the name wouldn't have any substantial exposure to the broader tech community. (The only cost would be occasional unimportant dust-ups when that exposure happens, as in this case.)

Another might be if there is a good chance that the importance of this project will outlast the public prominence of bro culture in tech. (Given the longevity of Bro to date and the promising backlash against bro culture, that seems quite plausible.) In that case, it might be entirely sensible to just weather the current storm of negative associations and trust that everyone will have forgotten brogrammers in five years. (That's only fully applicable if they really are forgotten, though, rather than being a lingering negative memory.)

You may have other reasonable arguments for setting aside the concerns that I've raised as well. But I do think that occasional undeserved distractions because of the name are inevitable, and I could imagine them being a real problem.