wayland-protocols scope and governance

Jonas Ådahl jadahl at gmail.com
Thu Sep 19 19:02:32 UTC 2019

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 02:10:24PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote:
> On Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 7:53 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > I think both for stable and unstable the same limitation can be
> > as problematic. A protocol that fits in xdg/wp may still only be
> > relevant for a single compositor and multiple toolkits, or vice versa,
> > even when declared stable. Seems to me like the wrong method to keep
> > quality of wp/xdg protocols high.
> If a protocol is only useful for one compositor, I think that compositor
> ought to manage the stability and governance of that protocol itself. If
> there aren't multiple stakeholders who need to be kept happy, then why
> is it even necessary to bring that protocol into shared governance? It's
> up to the single stakeholder to make any promises towards stability or
> design that they see fit with those who depend on them.

Well there could be multiple stake holders - multiple client toolkits.
Lets pretend there is only a single tiling compositor. Why would tiling
protocols be restricted from becoming part of xdg_*? Or lets pretend
only wlroots had any intention of implementing the server side of
xdg_toplevel_decoration, why would it be excluded, when Qt, gtk, GLFW,
SDL, ... would implement?

I think that if there is a consensus that it's within the correct scope
and no-one nacks it, there shouldn't need be any artifical bureaucratic
road blocks in the way.


More information about the wayland-devel mailing list