[LGM] LGM 2019 - Funding

[Soenke Zehle]

Hi Ale, all,

> soenke, could you please disclose what was your agreement with
> google (dave) when you told pippin in irc that google was ok with
> not having the logos in the video?

During one of the earlier chats I had asked Dave if it mattered whether the
Google money was actually used to produce the videos given that Gimp had
already committed to pay for that - the answer was: no, it doesn't matter
as long as the videos end up on youtube in the end. The assumption was that
Gimp's funding would suffice, so actually c3voc would only deal with Gimp.

What was not discussed at the time was what exactly this would involve,
this was only specified in the proposal Dave sent to the list regarding the
use of logos a few days ago.

There was not yet any (written) agreement - the reason we are having this
discussion now is that we (K8) won't sign anything on behalf of LGM that
has not been approved here.

If LGM decides they do not want this sponsorship there is no need to sign
anything of course.

> personally, i'm a bit uncomfortable with the attitude, that it's easier
> for an organization (with many people involved, with different opinions)
> to change a decision, rather than a company with a clear management
> structure.

No, that is not the intent at all, I am surprised that so much is being
read into this.

The question to Pippin simply followed up on his elaboration of the
prehistory of the Gimp-LGM agreement, I thought he might have an idea as
well on how to handle the Google sponsorship offer since Dave had already
shared his view on the matter on this list.

If anyone wants to read into that that in case of corporate-grassroots
conflict it is the latter that needs to give - certainly not my position.

> also, soenke -- as jehan hinted -- did you ask the "CCC guys" if they
> are comfortable with being paid by google?

I had spoken to Peter way back when, and I think we also talked about the
possibility that funding might come from Google again. But most recently
Gimp had handled this exchange directly.

Gimp money suffices, that is the thing. Actually the Google sponsoring is
not needed for video production at all. But it could pay for travel or
other event-related costs if LGM wants to consider that.

My sense was that Dave wanted to simplify (not dominate) the sponsorship
process by suggesting that the videos are also used to document Google's
support, but of course that is a rather awkward solution given that the
credit should go to Gimp.

> as we experienced last year, not everybody is willing to accept
> (big) corporate money.
>
> > I do not know whether LGM is in the
> > position to not accept such a sponsorship offer given that it also
> > wants to offer travel support.
>
> and i don't know if the LGM is in the position to alienate the support
> it is getting from the Gimp developers and organization.

I totally misread this. I didn't anticipate that shared credits / logos
would be read as gesture alienating Gimp members. But I understand this
better now.

> imo, if we are looking for a compromise, we should check what both
> parts can offer... and not forget that gimp was first, that we already
> told them that the problem has been solved, and that gimp is a corner
> stone of the lgm.

Makes sense.

Soenke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libre-graphics-meeting/attachments/20190502/0eeb3d04/attachment.html>