Hey folks. Sorry to offer up two resignations in two days, but I've been losing sleep and realised there are some things which have been bothering me for quite a long time now.
I think it boils down to this: My visions for Inkscape simply are not in-line with most of the rest of the project, and this is why I'm offering up my resignation. I firmly believe that PLC seats should be reserved for people who can represent the project's interests, which are decided by those who do the lion's share of contribution.
I do not think it's appropriate for people to vote on funding for parts of the project they have no hand in, and as such, I can not bring myself to continue voting on funding things for development, as I'm not a developer. The truth is, that I believe the development team should have final say in the project on this matter, thus my vote would always be "yes" for anything the developers have collectively decided.
The same goes for the Vectors, Testers, and any other group within Inkscape - they decide they need funding for x-thing they handle and are responsible for in their part of the project. It's a 100% yes from me, always. I think that's what a truly representative PLC should look like and act like. I do not think that the Vectors should be able to downvote development funds, just as I don't think the developers should be able to downvote vectors funds for the oureach activities that they handle. If a group does not do a thing, considered important for the project, they simply should not vote on those things either.
Recently I've seen an increase in attempts to build some processes to ensure "fairness" in funding. While in principle, this sounds like a good idea, I believe it's achieving the opposite. I think it's incredibly unfair to punish those who have and do contribute constantly to inkscape, because of supposed "conflicts of interest". This was made crystal clear to me recently when I requested funding to make a video under the same terms as last year (not setting any precedent for next year). If it's a conflict of interest for me to request funds, and no one else steps up to request funds on behalf of my video project, I'm stuck in a catch 22 situation, and the video just doesn't get funding. Maybe that's just lack of interest in a video from the Vector's side, but then why should they be in charge of voting down something as essential to outreach as a release video?
Let me make it clear - I don't care if it's me or someone else who does the video. If there were someone else with the capability to do it in FOSS to a professional standard at this late hour for this release, I'd just hand it over to them, since me doing it is apparently so contentious within the project. What upsets me is people seem to be voting for what they think the bureaucracy should look like, and not for what would benefit the project most at this time, while organisational efforts are incomplete.
I fully understand wanting to put a fair process in place, but not a finger has been lifted all year to do that, and I'm tired of fighting endlessly with people's personal sense of morality, while the project's development and exposure suffers. People seem to want a rigid, inflexible (and entirely undeveloped) process for doing things, and are willing to toss important deliverables for the project under the bus to get their own way.
I've loved some of the progress we've made together in getting things funded, but I can't fight everyone on these things and still consider myself a good project representative.
I therefore resign, effective immediately.
Thanks for your support, friendship and understanding. Hope this isn't too much of a downer for folks. I'm honestly feeling better already. :)
For Inkscape, always. -C