> On 09/23/2010 02:00 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
>> That basically boils down to "Why is there no GIMP Foundation"? In my
>> sick and screwed imagination the answer would be "Because there is
>> nobody willing to do all the bloody boring daily work required to
>> ensure prosperity of such an organization".
A foundation can hire someone to be the bureaucrat, but someone on the
inside needs to do the inital filing&organizing. We are sadly either
pixel pushers or bit pushers, not paper pushers.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Jay Smith <j...@jaysmith.com> wrote:
> I suspect that a paid Foundation position might annoy some developers who have
> been busting their tails for years, for free.
Not really. We do it for fun and all have jobs that cover our asses.
One of the things that has been discussed is that GIMP could really
use a paid developer for example. Someone who is paid to work full
time to just work on GIMP. There wasn't any opposition to the idea,
just nobody had time or will to push it into reality. I guess one of
the blockers is the question of what entity should do the hiring.
Witch brings us right back at the lack of a dedicated paper pusher.
The only way I can imagine "Rise of the Mighty Gimp Foundation"
happening is one of our lead developers and our cat herder(aka the Tie
Wearing Office Manager) quiting their day jobs and becoming starting
members of the foundation and its first full time employees. It comes
with the price of not being able to sneak off on the excuse of work ;)
. If this is something that can actually happen... I don't know. May
be its not even practical and there are other options. But if the
people in question would show an interest to risk the leap, I'd
Gimp-developer mailing list