Kelly Martin wrote:
David Neary wrote:
For the record, I'm in favour of this approach. There is no real
benefit in setting up a foundation structure which will just be a
fundraising structure, causing some people lots of work and cost,
when there is an organisation prepared to partner us which
already has all of this in place.
The downside of piggybacking on the GNOME Foundation is that you lose
control. You'll be beholden to whatever the interests of the GNOME
Foundation are, which may or may not be the same as what GIMP developers
want, and you might end up dragged in directions you don't want to go.
Technially possible. Though we can always phrase and record into their
bylaws the way in which The GIMP will be supported by GNOMe. If we can
get gnome to agree to it, for example, we could get the gimp delegated
to a committee, to which we have voted or nominated into place our
existing decsion makers (Sven, yosh, mitch, et al). Then The GIMP would
have much control over its destiny. Even still, I don't think GNOME
would excise any unusual amount of control over The GIMP. They don't
seem very iron fisted over the existing projects and I don't think GIMP
will be any different.
GNOME is eager to help us too, and I think that is worth a lot.
--
Dan
