Has Valve made every effort to assist in moving the official protocol forward before resorting to this? Reading the MR comments, the concensus seems to be that any remaining delay in publishing an official protocol is just a lack of maintainer/contributor activity. Seems like a perfect place for Valve to invest some man-hours and get it over the finish line.
> the [wayland-protocols] governance model is totally broken, and needs to be just removed and should be replaced with controlled anarchy like Mesa.
> the fact that the repository is anything more than a collection of XML files that compositors and clients handshake on is a huge mistake. w-p should not be set up like a standards body. it doesn't deal with ip or legal frameworks like Khronos does; and the current w-p governance represents but a tiny selection of clients and compositors.
> whenever something new is proposed, the immediate reaction is typically "this goes against my ideology for what i think is pure and right for Wayland," which is totally messed up and not conducive to actually fixing any problems. take the window icons protocol, 95% of that whole thing was just utterly useless noise and what-about-ism.
> it is not just a "technical" problem, the way people treat others with differing opinions and schools of thought about how something should or could be done is really bad, and even if certain people are not directly members, they are associated/affiliated to projects who are, and act incredibly hostile.
> in my experience, wayland-protocols is just a lot of power-tripping and useless arguing, and not much actually solving problems.
> as mentioned by me and others, the bar for entry for a protocol to land even in 'staging' is ludicrously high, which leads to features taking literally half a decade to land at some times.
> having a path for experimental protocols in w-p -- ie. something that can be rapidly iterated on and implemented by clients and compositors, and shipped to users is a total must.
> experimental protocols can follow the basic iteration groundrules of what I defined in frog-protocols to avoid there being an immense amount of churn there.
> but I think all of this is incompatible with the current governance model.