<div dir="auto">Agreed ale :)</div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:40 AM ale rimoldi <<a href="mailto:ale@graphicslab.org">ale@graphicslab.org</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">hi > do you have an idea for a way forward here? I see the problems / > concerns, was not fully aware (apologies) of the issues regarding > co-sponsorship, but would like to see a solution emerge. Do you have a > suggestion for how best to handle Google's interest in linking > sponsorship to whatever kind of visibility? > > Is GIMP ok with creating different versions of the video > documentation? > > If not that, what do you think is the best way to both honor the > understanding GIMP and LGM have reached and work with Google? > > Or are you suggesting LGM not accept the offer? My sense is that a lot > of self-organized projects deal with these issues, some can afford to > pick and choose, others cannot; 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. can we ask the same question to dave? dave, do you see any other way for google to sponsor the LGM, which does not require having the google logo in the videos? can google sponsor something else, than the recordings? and, 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? 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. also, soenke -- as jehan hinted -- did you ask the "CCC guys" if they are comfortable with being paid by google? 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. we have proven to be able to organize a successful LGM without money, but LGMs without participants have been a failure (and it "happened" only one (and half) time... and even then it was Gimp that rescued what could be rescued!). yes, i really have the feeling that the LGM needs Gimp more than it needs money. 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. ciao a.l.e _______________________________________________ Libre-graphics-meeting mailing list <a href="mailto:Libre-graphics-meeting@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Libre-graphics-meeting@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-graphics-meeting</a></blockquote></div>