Valve Fixes Wayland Governance Overnight!

Summary

The video discusses recent developments in Wayland's governance, particularly around the 'frog protocols' led by Valve contributors. These protocols address issues like refresh rates and stuttering, aiming to improve Wayland's mechanisms. The video covers tensions within the Wayland community, the introduction of new rules around NACK usage (a veto mechanism), and efforts to improve stalled discussions. Additionally, the video highlights experimental protocol changes and emphasizes how Valve's contributions have significantly influenced the ecosystem. Overall, it suggests that Valve's involvement has brought about long-awaited, much-needed reforms.

Takeaways

• 🐸 The introduction of 'frog protocols' for Wayland led to mixed reactions among contributors, but most eventually supported it.
• ⚖️ Frog protocols aim to bypass traditional Wayland governance, with Valve leading the changes even though they didn't initiate them.
• 📝 The main motivation behind the new protocols was frustration over issues like refresh rates and swap chain stuttering that hadn't been resolved effectively.
• 🤝 The proposal includes updates to Wayland's governance system, intending to address systemic issues present before the official governance model was implemented.
• 📜 Jonas Adahl initiated changes regarding Mesa's role in Wayland governance, making it an official member with voting rights.
• ❌ A new proposal redefines the 'NACK' process, allowing specific members to block a protocol, but now with clear rules and penalties for misuse.
• 🗳️ A tie-breaking vote mechanism has been proposed to resolve stalemates in protocol discussions and automatically promote inactive but widely used staging protocols.
• 👥 A sponsorship system was suggested for non-members proposing new protocols, ensuring representation by a voting member to improve perceived importance.
• 🚀 An optional 'experimental' protocol path allows faster development and easier testing, with clear rules for maintaining active development.
• 🔄 Many issues with Wayland governance have persisted because no one wanted to take the initiative to push for change, which Valve did effectively.

Q & A

What are the 'frog protocols' and why were they introduced for Wayland?

The 'frog protocols' were introduced to address specific issues related to refresh rates and swap chain stuttering in Wayland. They aim to provide a way to experiment with changes outside the traditional Wayland governance process, enabling faster development and experimentation.

Why did some core Wayland contributors initially oppose the frog protocols?

Some core Wayland contributors were frustrated by the introduction of the frog protocols because it circumvented the established Wayland governance process. They felt it undermined the existing system, although they later recognized the value in the rapid prototyping approach that frog protocols offered.

What systematic issues in Wayland's governance were highlighted in the discussion?

Issues such as lack of clarity around the roles of 'member' and 'individual,' inconsistent use of the NACK (negative acknowledgment), and lack of a formal mechanism for resolving stalemates were highlighted. These issues created bottlenecks and confusion in decision-making and protocol development.

What changes to the NACK (negative acknowledgment) system were proposed?

The proposal defined stricter rules for when a NACK can be used, who can use it, and the penalties for misuse. Only designated points of contact from member projects can use a NACK, and misuse can result in warnings or removal of voting rights for repeated violations.

What is the significance of adding experimental protocols to Wayland?

Adding experimental protocols allows for rapid prototyping and iteration without the constraints of the full governance process. This change aims to enable developers to test new ideas quickly and refine them based on real-world feedback, rather than being stalled by lengthy discussions.

What is the role of a 'point of contact' in Wayland's governance structure?

A 'point of contact' is a representative for a given member project who conveys the official stance of that project in protocol discussions. They are responsible for making decisions and voting on behalf of their project in Wayland's governance matters.

How do the proposed changes address the issue of discussion stalemates?

The changes introduce a tie-breaking vote mechanism, where a public issue is created if a stalemate occurs. If a clear majority vote is reached after a set period, the protocol development proceeds in that direction, resolving deadlocks.

What is 'automatic promotion to stable,' and when is it used?

Automatic promotion to stable occurs when a staging protocol has been in use as a de facto standard for a long period and has proven itself stable. A member can propose its promotion, and if no NACK is received during a 30-day review period, it is automatically promoted to a stable protocol.

What was the rationale behind allowing more than two points of contact per project?

Allowing more than two points of contact per project was introduced to increase representation and reduce strain on individuals, especially in complex project ecosystems like wlroots, which have many sub-projects. This change aims to enable broader participation and more efficient governance.

Why did Valve’s involvement significantly accelerate governance changes in Wayland?

Valve’s involvement accelerated changes because they were willing to take the initiative and propose solutions to long-standing issues that other developers hesitated to address. Their efforts provided a catalyst for broader agreement and reform in the governance structure.

What are some of the drawbacks or criticisms of the proposed governance changes?

Some contributors believe that the changes, like the differentiation between 'member' and 'non-member,' add unnecessary complexity. Additionally, there are concerns that the proposed rules around NACKs and governance procedures might be overly rigid and could lead to exclusion or miscommunication.