[michaelmrose]

Donations are driven presumably by people who are already sufficiently satisfied by current trajectory to want it to continue. Feature requests indicate that they desire to make it useful by understanding what things people want.

There is a difference between desiring to serve users needs and obligation to serve a particular need. No amount of need on your part constitutes an obligation on their part because simply you have paid them nothing and they offered you nothing other than the ability to use the current software as is or modify it. Nor indeed are they obliged to provide you a way to pay them for a particular feature although if you offered them a sufficiently large pile of money you might be able to reach a mutual understanding and certainly nothing prevents you from developing a fork or paying someone to do so right now.

A large problem with such an understanding forming is that the cost of such would be driven by the cost of expensive labor not your perception of the value to an individual end user. I have no idea what the actual cost of this is as I know nothing about their code but lets do a thought experiment.

Imagine if you will that making that happen in 2023 were to require 2 people who currently contribute to gimp part time to work on gimp full time for a year. This would in turn require replacing what they earn at their actual job including benefits. Suppose that for example required replacing $300,000 in wages. Unfortunately they may actually have long term employment that they like and not be enthused about working for one year and then going back on the job market. It might be much more feasible if it were possible to fund gimp development similarly for 5 years enabling not only your feature but others. This costs $1.5M dollars.

If someone responded to your feature request with sure thing will that be check charge or giant bag with a dollar sign I'm guessing you would laugh your ass off and move on.