There seems to be two main developer pain points, neither of which would be alleviated with funding.
Legacy Code - Working on legacy code really sucks and there is no amount of money that can make it un-suck. I've been there before. Working on someone else's code is the most joyless experience anyone could ever have, especially code that has a long development history. Having a root canal is a more pleasant activity.
Leadership - As mentioned earlier in the thread CW has inadvertently assumed CJ's role as our fearless leader. CW believes he lacks knowledge and authority to make certain kinds of decisions and so is uncomfortable in that role. This is exasperated by the difficulties associated with the legacy code base. The irony here is that the community has great confidence in CW's leadership abilities and whole heatedly support his decisions (even the wrong ones
)
The solution has already been mentioned previously in this thread. The current AGS version becomes Classic AGS with no future development except for bug fixes. We then begin an AGS 4.0 project from the ground up. I can't think of anything that would do more to re-energize the community than engagement in the process of creating a brand new AGS. The current AGS version could be used as a guide but we wouldn't have to lock ourselves into anything.
So to answer CW's original question ... NO it doesn't make sense to continue developing the legacy code base. There are too many limitations and it's too difficult to make progress. If there is a desire to start with a clean slate then we should go for it. I think it's something everybody would willing to support and contribute to.
Legacy Code - Working on legacy code really sucks and there is no amount of money that can make it un-suck. I've been there before. Working on someone else's code is the most joyless experience anyone could ever have, especially code that has a long development history. Having a root canal is a more pleasant activity.
Leadership - As mentioned earlier in the thread CW has inadvertently assumed CJ's role as our fearless leader. CW believes he lacks knowledge and authority to make certain kinds of decisions and so is uncomfortable in that role. This is exasperated by the difficulties associated with the legacy code base. The irony here is that the community has great confidence in CW's leadership abilities and whole heatedly support his decisions (even the wrong ones

The solution has already been mentioned previously in this thread. The current AGS version becomes Classic AGS with no future development except for bug fixes. We then begin an AGS 4.0 project from the ground up. I can't think of anything that would do more to re-energize the community than engagement in the process of creating a brand new AGS. The current AGS version could be used as a guide but we wouldn't have to lock ourselves into anything.
So to answer CW's original question ... NO it doesn't make sense to continue developing the legacy code base. There are too many limitations and it's too difficult to make progress. If there is a desire to start with a clean slate then we should go for it. I think it's something everybody would willing to support and contribute to.