wayland-protocols scope and governance

Jonas Ådahl jadahl at gmail.com
Mon Sep 23 08:47:06 UTC 2019

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:57:45PM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote:
> On Thu Sep 19, 2019 at 9:02 PM Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > 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.
> I mean, I'm not in any particular hurry to get any particular protocol
> through the process. An implementation is a key part of the development
> of a protocol and almost always reveals flaws in the protocol that a
> human reading alone wouldn't. The difference between client and server
> implementations can be similarly revealing, and it's nice to have more
> people looking at a protocol with this degree of care.
> However, I agree with your reasoning that multiple clients and a single
> compositor still creates a system of stakeholders which would benefit
> from this process. What if we required the sum of implementations
> (client or server) to be 3 or more?

Seems to me like a better alternative.


More information about the wayland-devel mailing list