Gregory's Server@matrix
2. I understand Element is the primary driver of Matrix work and they should be have a sustainable path forward. And that the Foundation isn't funded enough to do development on it's own. I do worry moving the projects back under Element is a bad look for the ecosystem, since it heavily favors Element. Could you describe any circumstances (such as more foundation funding or active contributions for other entities) that would prompt moving the projects back under the foundation?
|
Top-level
2 comments
@mirdaki @matrix from the Element side: if the Foundation had sufficient funding to pay Element to maintain the projects, then there would be no reason to move them. But instead, this is an attempt to generate enough funding in general (i.e. from dual-licensing to commercial forks) to pay for their development. |
@mirdaki There are several dimensions to this that are difficult to boil down into a thread. Expect more comms from us soon.
Our view is that the Foundation's role in developing open source software is to fill gaps that others are not addressing.
We would both need to (1) see a gap and (2) have the resources to fund development.
Today, we don't have the funds to even meet current obligations. Fixing that and actualizing open governance are the first big projects of our Managing Director.