So, I actually asked a guy in the IRC channel why he voted no. He wasn't happy about being asked, but that's the breaks when it comes to these types of things. Plus, why be ashamed of your vote assuming you have reasons for doing it?
Anyway, the guy said that he didn't like that it was essentially giving the marketers a path towards being reimbursed for the work that's been done. It sets a "precedent."
There wasn't any discussion beyond that... I was essentially told to stuff it.
My take is that some people don't feel that the logo, while nice, is something that should be reimbursed. I don't know what that has to do with this vote. I understand the sentiment that it sets a precedent for reimbursement, but more so, that those that have power due to the logo will retain the power. THAT is the actual issue; they don't want the marketing/branding people to retain the power they've just created for themselves.
As I mentioned in another post, the GRC folk that have put in work feel ownership over Gridcoin. It's a problem for them to see others coming in and changing or completely removing things that they've owned and contributed previously. People don't like to give up or even share power. Even people that would normally be considered the exact opposite of caring about those things...
Personally, I love the logo, and I'm super happy it went through. Maybe gridcoin can actually progress now instead of just remaining stagnant, particularly when it comes to marketing. I, for one, am glad a precedent for reimbursement has been established. To me, it seems that things don't really get done otherwise.
Interesting perspective - thanks for asking and getting the feelers out there. This just sounds like the person misunderstands what has happened.
While I can see that as a valid concern, it is baseless. There is no official reimbursement for marketing at all, and the only funds received by anyone as a result of this work was donations.
As a matter of fact, when the topic was last raised Joshoeah explicitly did not want to raise a Foundation expense poll.
That being said, on a personal note I think work like this should be reimbursed to some extent. That is a whole separate topic to this logo though.
To echo what @dutch and @jringo have already said - as the designer here, I have volunteered my time with no expectation of reimbursement, solely as a way for me to be involved in a project I heavily support. My reward comes from contributing personally to the project by using the skillset that I have to offer and seeing my work go out into the world - exactly why I do any design work.
This misunderstanding is very unfortunate - not to mention something that could very easily have been cleared up with a little transparency and discussion. Hopefully the individual involved will see this, or see our dedication to Gridcoin, and reconsider their opinion :)
Thanks for reaching out!
I'm with @dutch. I don't see where this person sees a path toward foundation reimbursement. The idea of being reimbursed for this logo work has never been brought up in more than a "I'd support" tone. The general agreement is that this is volunteer work. We are investing time into the project instead of cash with the intention of speeding along adoption.
Our work is volunteer and donation based.
Backend Dev work is compensated.
Maybe in the future there will be some sort of reimbursement for projects other than backend dev, but we are not operating under the assumption that if we build it we will get paid.