They gave two ways in which Wayland didn't meet their requirements. And your objection to those reasons is...well, I'm not really sure. You just quoted them and aimed for sarcasm as though they were obviously wrong.
If you're wondering what "coherent" means, it's kind of the opposite of your post. Are you saying that their reasons are incorrect? Are you saying you don't understand them? What?
I'm saying, a couple of lame excuses* is not a good reason for going their own way.
I'm sure you could come up with 2 good reasons for going with wayland too, if you tried for more than 5 seconds. Does that means it's a good idea?
If they want to explain why they don't want to use wayland they have a couple of choices:
1) Say, 'we don't want to use it', and not give a reason.
2) Say, 'we can't use it, because of...'
I totally respect both of those positions, but the road they've taken doesn't impress me at all.
Both of the (2) reasons they give seem trivial and over coming them, would be, effort wise, surely significantly less than implementing an entire display server.
Can you see then, why their argument doesn't exactly make sense?
If you have some serious and significant concerns with a project, then list them! Don't pull out a couple of random lame* things that you don't particularly like and then say those are why you've decided to devote a huge amount of effort towards something.
*yes, lame. Are they seriously suggesting you can't use a leap with wayland? ..and that justifies, as a policy decision, a reason to go forward with mir? Absurd.
There is no split in the community. You (and I) are perfectly free to use Wayland or Mir, or neither, or both. They can "steal" ideas from each other. The same developer can work on both at the same time.
Competing projects are a good thing. Forks are a good thing.
If you're wondering what "coherent" means, it's kind of the opposite of your post. Are you saying that their reasons are incorrect? Are you saying you don't understand them? What?