[LGM] LGM 2019 - Funding

[Frank Trampe]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:21 PM Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 3:10 AM Frank Trampe <frank.trampe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I agree that we need to be faithful to past agreements/obligations, but
>> we need to know what those are in order to do so. Would somebody involved
>> provide here the full agreement (in whatever form that might be) regarding
>> the GIMP's LGM sponsorship?
>>
>
> The parts I have from copy-pastes. No idea if some sentences are missing
> in-between:
>
> 16:27 < soenke> @pippin re sponsoring - Google can help but easiest for
> them would be videos w/ logo (only proof needed, money can go to general
> travel budget as we). Would that work if Gimp also comes on board f
> sponsorship?
> 16:40 < pippin> soenke: trying to gather response, but I am quite sure it
> will be NO
> 16:42 < pippin> soenke: offer google their logo on the website and/or
> printed program, GIMP funds are ear-marked not for general travel,  since
> continuing that practice is a bit unfaithful to the people who have
> donating the funds to GIMP.
> 16:47 < soenke> @pippin ok will tell them
> 16:54 < soenke> @pippin ok spoke with Google - all is fine as long as
> videos (also) end up on youtube
>
> That sounds like the Google logo can go on videos? Are we missing context
about whose logo that is?


> I think that it's important to understand people's priorities here. My
>> understanding is that the GIMP pays for its own travel and for the video
>> services not for the sponsorship credit but to keep our rather fragile
>> event alive. If some other party is willing to pick up those costs instead,
>> would the GIMP really say no to that just to keep exclusive sponsorship
>> recognition?
>>
>
> I didn't say this at all.
> You are twisting my words and this is completely uncool. So much that I'm
> not sure I want to continue this discussion.
> This kind of rethorical techniques are totally uncalled for and not the
> way to a sane discussion.
>
> I was not saying that you said that. I was backing up your argument that
there was definitely room to work this out, regardless of what prior
agreement might be in place.


> Jehan
>
>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:00 PM Gregory Pittman <gpittman at iglou.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> At this point, I think it's a matter of unruffling feathers and then
>>> seeing if this can be worked out. If Google is insistent on sole funding
>>> for the videos, then it may be that they need to be told this is not
>>> available. If they can be flexible, considering that the potential partner
>>> in sponsoring is not a competitor, and indeed one of the prime projects to
>>> start LGM in the first place (I hope they don't need to be told this).
>>>
>>> Gimp must have its due in this situation, just as we would be fair if
>>> some other concern approached us about funding after Google. We need to
>>> have some clear points for Dave to take back to them to see if it can be
>>> worked out.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
>>> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
>> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
>
>
>
> --
> ZeMarmot open animation film
> http://film.zemarmot.net
> Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/ZeMarmot/
> Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot
> Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
> _______________________________________________
> Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list
> Libre-graphics-meeting at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20190501/51c593a0/attachment-0001.html>