The ministry of education of the federal state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern acted in the illustrated way. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is a small state in the north east of Germany. The central auditing authority of that state (Landesrechnungshof) recalculated the effort and determined that the cost of the early replacement due to a virus infection was too expensive considering the alternatives.
The German ministry of education is placed in Berlin (which is also a federal state having its own minitry of education) and called "Bundersministerium für Bildung und Forschung" (engl. Federal Ministry of Education and Research).
Absolutely! You need therefor the figures for the CO2 emissions for the food in the store. I've heard the in Sweden they do that. Maybe someone has more insight into the topic.
It depends highly on you life situation, if you can do this. My point is, that the delivery home service might only be in an advantage in areas where people go by car to shop for food. While in many urban areas in Europe, this is not the case. Furthermore, other world areas, people have not that many cars or can not transport stuff in an time efficient way with cars. This includes India and large parts of China.
Under the assumption that you have to transport large amounts of grocery products and the time invested for the total activity is high (implying that you have to drive some distance) then the delivery service IS the better way.
You can do what ever you want. I definitely wast lest time that way. I do not know which heavy stuff you buy in a grocery. As I live in an urban area and work all day, I eat in the canteen at University. So I need only breakfast and dinner at home. As living in Germany lunch is rather small, bread and stuff, and breakfast is muesli (most days). It is suffice to shop at the weekend and walk by the bakery for bread on my way home maybe 10 min extra time. Also, as I shop less, I do not need to shop that long. My lifestyle would not work in a rural area or if you work far away from home. However, my original argument was, my way to shop requires less CO2 than any delivery service to my home. The small groceries where I shop are more or less my storage.
Correct. I go there after work or more often on Saturday. Mostly for food of course. In most cases there is no heavy stuff. For now we are only a two person household, but even with three or four that scheme would be possible. If you only buy the stuff you really need, you can buy your stuff in a matter of minutes. In the end I wast less time than some of my colleagues who do that big weekend shopping thing every second weekend. And I need less storage space. However, this is only possible because I live in a city with all the necessary shops around me. During my study time, I lived in a shared flat, and we shopped normally by bike with a bicycle-trailer. Good enough for a five person household.
When I go to the grocery, I walk there. I doubt that any delivery service can be more efficient. However, to be able to shop in that way, the supermarket must be not more than 10-20 min away from home (by foot or by bike).
Monsanto is pushing legislation in Europe to allow GMO in the EU now for quite some time. Just recently, they started a new campaign. this resulted in a counter campaign from NGOs, like FoodWatch or via Avaaz.org. It is obvious that this news from a special research facility in Spain is triggered one way or the other from Monsanto and friends.
The research facility as such [http://www.icrea.es] is not easy to find in the net. Also searching for it and collaboration projects does not yield much results. However, on their site they give the impression to be a big research facility, while the website is rather small and uninformative compared to other research facilities. Furthermore, patents seem to be most important for them. Based on their publication, I do not believe that their a very credible source of information. However, some one here on/. may be able to provide more inside into the credibility of icrea
Nope they won't. They would increase to the amount of so called organic meat. Yes, this would result in higher meat prices for those who shop at Aldi, Tesco or any other discounter. However, it would also result in lower meat consumption, which is an important goal when considering health issues due to too much meat consumption. In consequence, the meat production farms, for example in the north west of Germany, would have to decrease their production and stop polluting the air and groundwater with their animal waste.
However, it has not been proven so far, that genetic engineered plants have a higher outcome than conventional plants, or that they require less pesticides. If you use seeds from Monsanto you also should use their fertilizer an pesticides, because their seeds are resistant to their special pesticide. It is a total vendor lock in. Never, ever do that with food.
They assume, that genetically engineered plants would cause a bigger yield than other plants. This has not been true for any genetically engineered plant so far. However, it allows big companies to control the plant and seed market. We all know how good private monopolies work.
Furthermore, in the EU, a lot of food is wasted (50%) before it reaches the customer. And large land areas are in an unused state, due to subventions to reduce the capabilities to produce goods. Even considering potential risks due to climate change, the production should be more than suffice for the EU itself and also provide a great amount of exports.
Why? Drivers do not understand you hand signals. However, computers are able to understand such signals. I am not sure if the already added that to their car driving software.
Next big problem in autonomous vehicles are legal issues. The autonomous car can be as perfect as possible. As long as we are not able to solve the legal issues, it will not fly. At present: Car who park them selves are not allowed to control the engine, because the human must be in control so he can be blamed for damaging other cars or hurting people. Who is to blame if the car is doing all by itself? At present the problem will be relayed from the "driver" to the car company. A solution is, that the user has to activate the system and his insurance includes damages caused by malfunction. But this is only a concept and it is not backed up by any legislation.
European left are not necessarily for big government in a sense of a big administrative structure with a powerful president at the top. Present thinking is going in the direction of greater influence of the citizens in the governance. These are normally classified as liberal believes. However, you are definitely right to call this left-right thing a stereotype, as it does not really fit present party and believe structures.
What's worse? Considering the plausibility of non-mainstream ideas (you call "conspiracy theories") or believing that government is a magic wealth generating machine which can defy mathematics?
In that point you seem to have a different view of conspiracy theories. There are conspiracy theories and there are non-mainstream ideas. The difference is, the first rely on fictional believes and the exclusion of evidence, while the second are alternative models describing the reality or provide alternative control/administration structures to fulfill human rights.
The government in a country should be an public institution designed to execute law. In most countries they are also involved in law making, which is not the best idea. What you mean is the state, the state is a public institution which sub sums all public institutions which need democratic control (at least in democracies). Social benefit systems are therefore part of a state. However, they are there to protect the people, as they form a non-profit insurance. In the EU state driven health insurance have been proven more efficient than the private US pendant in serviceability and cost. But, yes, the state does not generate wealth, it is there to protect it and further protect human rights to everyone in the country.
Despite overwhelming historical evidence demonstrating that governments cannot be trusted, that power is inherently corrupting and that central planning is a failure, the left remains rigid in their belief that more and bigger government is the answer to all of our problems. Talk about people who are "convinced".
First, governments are elected, if you elect over and over the same people, who is to blame. However, I accept that the US system is not well designed to allow new parties enter parliament and steer up the political establishment. Long running governments tend to become corrupt. The only thing to protect society is transparency.
Second, central planning has failed in Eastern European countries, because of two things. A) they planned, but they did not understand simple management rules. You define goals, you plan measures to reach these goals, you check how good you progress and if you don't you change the measures. A less brief explanation can be found in most management books. B) they did not allow critique. Critique is important in management.
Central planning works by the way quite well in most companies. So the real problem is not the central planning, but the way how you control your doing and how you interact on that. Companies who forget to allow critique and do not discuss their goals and measures tend to fail. so the main failure in Eastern Europe were the lack of freedom to formulate critique without harm. Thankfully that resulted in the collapse of those states.
Sweden is a North European country. The EU is compared to the US a liberal, left wind conglomerate of states. And in the EU the northern countries are even more on the liberal and social side of the spectrum. They have a very low Gini coefficient while the US one is as high as the one in China. Or in other words it has the worst Gini coefficient in a developed country. Their median education is one of the best, the potential to feel left alone is at a minimum. In such environment are the chance higher, that people become open minded.
The far right in the US, are not open to normal communication or discussion. They made their mind up. That is similar to those who believe in conspiracy theories, they reject facts and arguments, because they do not fit their believe. For the rest, that study has a valid point, but I wouldn't hope that the potential to convince people to accept reason can be converted in convinced people.
You forget that North Korea is not a real threat to the US or anyone else. they might cause some damage to South Korea or Japan if they start a war, but they will not last long, as their weapons are outdated, their troops are not in great shape. And they are so energy dependent on China that they would run out of fuel after a few days (if not hours).
The real thing this is all about: Kim wants to show to his military that the atomic are suffice to keep the South and all the capitalists from the US out of the North, because they have these nuclear weapons. If that works, they have a weaker position in requesting special treatment for the military releasing resources to supply the population and turn the economic system. So he needs some sort of international acceptance of their nuclear weapons.
This is not a preparation of war against anyone outside of North Korea, it is an attack on the power of the military in North Korea.
If they cannot reach the US with their missiles, it is also not possible to reach European states. They could reach Russia's Asian part, but I highly doubt that they want to shoot at the Russians.
What? You are saying that the USA is not the best ever country in the entire universe? Damn. And I thought that is the crown to achieve. Well then I have to find out what I really want.
All global problems are political problems. The technical problems can be solved in short time (about 10 years). Real problems, like a non sustainable way to produce goods, are on a technical basis easy to solve. It may take time to implement, but they are not hard to solve. For most problems solution concepts already exist. However, it will not happen until politicians are able to establish an political process to do start the transformation. The skill crisis is also only a political problem. If politics would invest more money in education, reduce visa barriers, and support child education in a way that the sciences are presented in a positive way so that children like to look into these fields.
On the other side. Every software company I have seen, is not able to produce software in an efficient way. The all tinker with code instead of using solid processes. Single projects which used proper management methods all finished in time and stayed in a maintainable form.
Furthermore, Ubuntu proposed to use a "test-driven" development method. While such a decision is debatable, the Wayland project does not talk about its development method.
What's that supposed to mean? Have you ever tried going to the Wayland IRC channel (#wayland on freenode) and asking?
That is beside the point. If they have such process, it should be documented in the FAQ or other form of documentation. They might have some sort of understanding. Such information can be gathered by inquiry. However, in all projects, I have seen so far. If it is not documented, the project participants might think they have a common understanding, but when it comes down to get a coherent answer from all participants, it deviates. Also it is not very effective agreeing on something, then not documenting it, and in the end have to tell every new member everything about the project from scratch.
My point is: They don't make it easy to participate for new members. And while they are producing open source (great thing), they did not such a good job on communicating their knowledge. For an easy access to a project of such size you need three things documented:
Process and development model (they may change over time, but then you have to fix the documentation)
The architecture and concepts used. And the not only the "how", but also the "why".
Documentation of the API including methods/function call signature and their meaning. When the API speaks an state based language, the state (or model) associated with the API has to be documented as well
Wayland did not do a good job on this documentation side. From the Mir project, I haven't seen such information. So at present both projects have the same problem.
Wayland is a project developed out in the open, but you make it sound like it's a secret how exactly Wayland development proceeds. It's not.
Wayland is an open source project, but it is not an open development project, because (lake many other open source projects and also most closed source projects) documentation is not part of the development process. I could aggregate most of the information I requested by reading the whole mailing list and aggregate the information. That would most likely cost my one or two month to come up with the necessary documentation. The next guy who wants to participate in the project has to do the same all over again. Yes I can ask question in IRC or the mailing list. Yes I can pull the developer for every bit of information, but that wastes a lot of development time for nothing. The problem of the Wayland project is not singular to it, other projects have similar problems.
Everything else you say in your post is fair enough, but the point about Canonical not contributing to Wayland deserves more mention than it has been getting in these discussions. It's nice to want to use Wayland, but if their only problem with it was development not going fast enough, then implementing a new display server from scratch is the exact opposite of a solution, especially when none of the Mir developers have significant prior experience working on display servers. If they wanted to have a modern display server to happen faster, the easiest and most reasonable way to accomplish that - both for Canonical's needs and for everyone else's - would be to take an active role in the development of Wayland.
I personally find it sad, that Canonical was not able to discuss their problems with Wayland before they launch a new project. IMHO they should have designed a concept and published that. That would have been a better starting point for a discussion. So frankly I am disappointed from Canonical. But I am also a little bit sad, because Wayland is not proceeding that well. If I had any spare time left, I would give it a try and fix some of the bugs in Wayland;-) However, I am pretty much tied up in other (also OSS) projects. And yes they sucked on the documentation side big time. For our key project, we fixed it over the last two years. It was a long process, but it made the whole product better.
You miss the point. Ubuntu wanted to use Wayland. They said it is a great idea when the project started. But then the project got somewhat stuck. The public available documentation is weak, which makes it very complicated to add to the project. Furthermore, Ubuntu proposed to use a "test-driven" development method. While such a decision is debatable, the Wayland project does not talk about its development method.
Hopefully, the both sides do a lot of talking (which is already taking place) and in the end they can come up with one API for all. It is not helpful to a) say Canonical did not contribute to Wayland and then b) say that their move will harm the Wayland development. First, they did and if this was insignificant, the withdrawal of resources by Canonical would not effect the development. Second, both server use the same driver and EGL stack. The different uses might even help to stabilize this stack further. Third, Canonical wants something available for all computer devices with a screen. Wayland was started as a desktop replacement. Even though it is able to do its job on other devices, these ideas were later added.
On a side note: The biggest issues of Wayland are a) not enough communication in form of specs, documentation, and a roadmap (including all the stuff for project management), and b) they are not able to deliver Wayland+Weston for years now. All widget-set ports and other uses of Wayland are only demos. You cannot run it for real. Yes I know the task is complicated. But if you need more help then make it easy to help. At the moment. I will use Wayland or Mir what ever will be available in a working form.
Slashdot Mirror
The ministry of education of the federal state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern acted in the illustrated way. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is a small state in the north east of Germany. The central auditing authority of that state (Landesrechnungshof) recalculated the effort and determined that the cost of the early replacement due to a virus infection was too expensive considering the alternatives.
The German ministry of education is placed in Berlin (which is also a federal state having its own minitry of education) and called "Bundersministerium für Bildung und Forschung" (engl. Federal Ministry of Education and Research).
Absolutely! You need therefor the figures for the CO2 emissions for the food in the store. I've heard the in Sweden they do that. Maybe someone has more insight into the topic.
It depends highly on you life situation, if you can do this. My point is, that the delivery home service might only be in an advantage in areas where people go by car to shop for food. While in many urban areas in Europe, this is not the case. Furthermore, other world areas, people have not that many cars or can not transport stuff in an time efficient way with cars. This includes India and large parts of China.
Under the assumption that you have to transport large amounts of grocery products and the time invested for the total activity is high (implying that you have to drive some distance) then the delivery service IS the better way.
You can do what ever you want. I definitely wast lest time that way. I do not know which heavy stuff you buy in a grocery. As I live in an urban area and work all day, I eat in the canteen at University. So I need only breakfast and dinner at home. As living in Germany lunch is rather small, bread and stuff, and breakfast is muesli (most days). It is suffice to shop at the weekend and walk by the bakery for bread on my way home maybe 10 min extra time. Also, as I shop less, I do not need to shop that long. My lifestyle would not work in a rural area or if you work far away from home. However, my original argument was, my way to shop requires less CO2 than any delivery service to my home. The small groceries where I shop are more or less my storage.
Correct. I go there after work or more often on Saturday. Mostly for food of course. In most cases there is no heavy stuff. For now we are only a two person household, but even with three or four that scheme would be possible. If you only buy the stuff you really need, you can buy your stuff in a matter of minutes. In the end I wast less time than some of my colleagues who do that big weekend shopping thing every second weekend. And I need less storage space. However, this is only possible because I live in a city with all the necessary shops around me. During my study time, I lived in a shared flat, and we shopped normally by bike with a bicycle-trailer. Good enough for a five person household.
When I go to the grocery, I walk there. I doubt that any delivery service can be more efficient. However, to be able to shop in that way, the supermarket must be not more than 10-20 min away from home (by foot or by bike).
Monsanto is pushing legislation in Europe to allow GMO in the EU now for quite some time. Just recently, they started a new campaign. this resulted in a counter campaign from NGOs, like FoodWatch or via Avaaz.org. It is obvious that this news from a special research facility in Spain is triggered one way or the other from Monsanto and friends.
The research facility as such [http://www.icrea.es] is not easy to find in the net. Also searching for it and collaboration projects does not yield much results. However, on their site they give the impression to be a big research facility, while the website is rather small and uninformative compared to other research facilities. Furthermore, patents seem to be most important for them. Based on their publication, I do not believe that their a very credible source of information. However, some one here on /. may be able to provide more inside into the credibility of icrea
Nope they won't. They would increase to the amount of so called organic meat. Yes, this would result in higher meat prices for those who shop at Aldi, Tesco or any other discounter. However, it would also result in lower meat consumption, which is an important goal when considering health issues due to too much meat consumption. In consequence, the meat production farms, for example in the north west of Germany, would have to decrease their production and stop polluting the air and groundwater with their animal waste.
However, it has not been proven so far, that genetic engineered plants have a higher outcome than conventional plants, or that they require less pesticides. If you use seeds from Monsanto you also should use their fertilizer an pesticides, because their seeds are resistant to their special pesticide. It is a total vendor lock in. Never, ever do that with food.
They assume, that genetically engineered plants would cause a bigger yield than other plants. This has not been true for any genetically engineered plant so far. However, it allows big companies to control the plant and seed market. We all know how good private monopolies work.
Furthermore, in the EU, a lot of food is wasted (50%) before it reaches the customer. And large land areas are in an unused state, due to subventions to reduce the capabilities to produce goods. Even considering potential risks due to climate change, the production should be more than suffice for the EU itself and also provide a great amount of exports.
Since when is Sheldon Cooper allowed to post online?
Why? Drivers do not understand you hand signals. However, computers are able to understand such signals. I am not sure if the already added that to their car driving software.
Next big problem in autonomous vehicles are legal issues. The autonomous car can be as perfect as possible. As long as we are not able to solve the legal issues, it will not fly. At present: Car who park them selves are not allowed to control the engine, because the human must be in control so he can be blamed for damaging other cars or hurting people. Who is to blame if the car is doing all by itself? At present the problem will be relayed from the "driver" to the car company. A solution is, that the user has to activate the system and his insurance includes damages caused by malfunction. But this is only a concept and it is not backed up by any legislation.
The spotless Democrat Putin plays with space planes instead of fixing his country.
European left are not necessarily for big government in a sense of a big administrative structure with a powerful president at the top. Present thinking is going in the direction of greater influence of the citizens in the governance. These are normally classified as liberal believes. However, you are definitely right to call this left-right thing a stereotype, as it does not really fit present party and believe structures.
What's worse? Considering the plausibility of non-mainstream ideas (you call "conspiracy theories") or believing that government is a magic wealth generating machine which can defy mathematics?
In that point you seem to have a different view of conspiracy theories. There are conspiracy theories and there are non-mainstream ideas. The difference is, the first rely on fictional believes and the exclusion of evidence, while the second are alternative models describing the reality or provide alternative control/administration structures to fulfill human rights.
The government in a country should be an public institution designed to execute law. In most countries they are also involved in law making, which is not the best idea. What you mean is the state, the state is a public institution which sub sums all public institutions which need democratic control (at least in democracies). Social benefit systems are therefore part of a state. However, they are there to protect the people, as they form a non-profit insurance. In the EU state driven health insurance have been proven more efficient than the private US pendant in serviceability and cost. But, yes, the state does not generate wealth, it is there to protect it and further protect human rights to everyone in the country.
Despite overwhelming historical evidence demonstrating that governments cannot be trusted, that power is inherently corrupting and that central planning is a failure, the left remains rigid in their belief that more and bigger government is the answer to all of our problems. Talk about people who are "convinced".
First, governments are elected, if you elect over and over the same people, who is to blame. However, I accept that the US system is not well designed to allow new parties enter parliament and steer up the political establishment. Long running governments tend to become corrupt. The only thing to protect society is transparency.
Second, central planning has failed in Eastern European countries, because of two things. A) they planned, but they did not understand simple management rules. You define goals, you plan measures to reach these goals, you check how good you progress and if you don't you change the measures. A less brief explanation can be found in most management books. B) they did not allow critique. Critique is important in management.
Central planning works by the way quite well in most companies. So the real problem is not the central planning, but the way how you control your doing and how you interact on that. Companies who forget to allow critique and do not discuss their goals and measures tend to fail. so the main failure in Eastern Europe were the lack of freedom to formulate critique without harm. Thankfully that resulted in the collapse of those states.
Sweden is a North European country. The EU is compared to the US a liberal, left wind conglomerate of states. And in the EU the northern countries are even more on the liberal and social side of the spectrum. They have a very low Gini coefficient while the US one is as high as the one in China. Or in other words it has the worst Gini coefficient in a developed country. Their median education is one of the best, the potential to feel left alone is at a minimum. In such environment are the chance higher, that people become open minded.
The far right in the US, are not open to normal communication or discussion. They made their mind up. That is similar to those who believe in conspiracy theories, they reject facts and arguments, because they do not fit their believe. For the rest, that study has a valid point, but I wouldn't hope that the potential to convince people to accept reason can be converted in convinced people.
You forget that North Korea is not a real threat to the US or anyone else. they might cause some damage to South Korea or Japan if they start a war, but they will not last long, as their weapons are outdated, their troops are not in great shape. And they are so energy dependent on China that they would run out of fuel after a few days (if not hours).
The real thing this is all about: Kim wants to show to his military that the atomic are suffice to keep the South and all the capitalists from the US out of the North, because they have these nuclear weapons. If that works, they have a weaker position in requesting special treatment for the military releasing resources to supply the population and turn the economic system. So he needs some sort of international acceptance of their nuclear weapons.
This is not a preparation of war against anyone outside of North Korea, it is an attack on the power of the military in North Korea.
If they cannot reach the US with their missiles, it is also not possible to reach European states. They could reach Russia's Asian part, but I highly doubt that they want to shoot at the Russians.
What? You are saying that the USA is not the best ever country in the entire universe? Damn. And I thought that is the crown to achieve. Well then I have to find out what I really want.
Just because something works in one context, does not mean it is also a great idea in another area.
On the ride back, we should repeat that with European governments.
All global problems are political problems. The technical problems can be solved in short time (about 10 years). Real problems, like a non sustainable way to produce goods, are on a technical basis easy to solve. It may take time to implement, but they are not hard to solve. For most problems solution concepts already exist. However, it will not happen until politicians are able to establish an political process to do start the transformation. The skill crisis is also only a political problem. If politics would invest more money in education, reduce visa barriers, and support child education in a way that the sciences are presented in a positive way so that children like to look into these fields.
On the other side. Every software company I have seen, is not able to produce software in an efficient way. The all tinker with code instead of using solid processes. Single projects which used proper management methods all finished in time and stayed in a maintainable form.
No they are made out of atheists. The crazy bible belt people got it all wrong.
Furthermore, Ubuntu proposed to use a "test-driven" development method. While such a decision is debatable, the Wayland project does not talk about its development method.
What's that supposed to mean? Have you ever tried going to the Wayland IRC channel (#wayland on freenode) and asking?
That is beside the point. If they have such process, it should be documented in the FAQ or other form of documentation. They might have some sort of understanding. Such information can be gathered by inquiry. However, in all projects, I have seen so far. If it is not documented, the project participants might think they have a common understanding, but when it comes down to get a coherent answer from all participants, it deviates. Also it is not very effective agreeing on something, then not documenting it, and in the end have to tell every new member everything about the project from scratch.
My point is: They don't make it easy to participate for new members. And while they are producing open source (great thing), they did not such a good job on communicating their knowledge. For an easy access to a project of such size you need three things documented:
Wayland did not do a good job on this documentation side. From the Mir project, I haven't seen such information. So at present both projects have the same problem.
Wayland is a project developed out in the open, but you make it sound like it's a secret how exactly Wayland development proceeds. It's not.
Wayland is an open source project, but it is not an open development project, because (lake many other open source projects and also most closed source projects) documentation is not part of the development process. I could aggregate most of the information I requested by reading the whole mailing list and aggregate the information. That would most likely cost my one or two month to come up with the necessary documentation. The next guy who wants to participate in the project has to do the same all over again. Yes I can ask question in IRC or the mailing list. Yes I can pull the developer for every bit of information, but that wastes a lot of development time for nothing. The problem of the Wayland project is not singular to it, other projects have similar problems.
Everything else you say in your post is fair enough, but the point about Canonical not contributing to Wayland deserves more mention than it has been getting in these discussions. It's nice to want to use Wayland, but if their only problem with it was development not going fast enough, then implementing a new display server from scratch is the exact opposite of a solution, especially when none of the Mir developers have significant prior experience working on display servers. If they wanted to have a modern display server to happen faster, the easiest and most reasonable way to accomplish that - both for Canonical's needs and for everyone else's - would be to take an active role in the development of Wayland.
I personally find it sad, that Canonical was not able to discuss their problems with Wayland before they launch a new project. IMHO they should have designed a concept and published that. That would have been a better starting point for a discussion. So frankly I am disappointed from Canonical. But I am also a little bit sad, because Wayland is not proceeding that well. If I had any spare time left, I would give it a try and fix some of the bugs in Wayland ;-) However, I am pretty much tied up in other (also OSS) projects. And yes they sucked on the documentation side big time. For our key project, we fixed it over the last two years. It was a long process, but it made the whole product better.
They want conceptually something like Wayland, but not the concrete realization.
You miss the point. Ubuntu wanted to use Wayland. They said it is a great idea when the project started. But then the project got somewhat stuck. The public available documentation is weak, which makes it very complicated to add to the project. Furthermore, Ubuntu proposed to use a "test-driven" development method. While such a decision is debatable, the Wayland project does not talk about its development method.
Hopefully, the both sides do a lot of talking (which is already taking place) and in the end they can come up with one API for all. It is not helpful to a) say Canonical did not contribute to Wayland and then b) say that their move will harm the Wayland development. First, they did and if this was insignificant, the withdrawal of resources by Canonical would not effect the development. Second, both server use the same driver and EGL stack. The different uses might even help to stabilize this stack further. Third, Canonical wants something available for all computer devices with a screen. Wayland was started as a desktop replacement. Even though it is able to do its job on other devices, these ideas were later added.
On a side note: The biggest issues of Wayland are a) not enough communication in form of specs, documentation, and a roadmap (including all the stuff for project management), and b) they are not able to deliver Wayland+Weston for years now. All widget-set ports and other uses of Wayland are only demos. You cannot run it for real. Yes I know the task is complicated. But if you need more help then make it easy to help. At the moment. I will use Wayland or Mir what ever will be available in a working form.