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.