The use of "arrived" was precisely to abstract from this sub-discussion.

But since you raised it: your description is quite misleading. One person proposed Wayland. Some others (who happened to be already unhappy with X) thought it was a good idea. Most of them were or are involved in Xorg directly or indirectly. But the development of Wayland was not some upfront decision by X developers.

Doesn't change my point: Wayland is not some truth revealed that had been bestowed upon the developers who then seen the truth and went away from X. The set of people working on Xorg and Wayland was overlapping so much, that work on Wayland stole (took away, diverted, see thesaurus if my choice of words grates on you) cognitive resources needed to maintain Xorg.

And then they just stated a fact "oh, see, no one wants to maintain Xorg" as if they didn't know. This atmosphere of faux surprise is what I didn't like at the time. Also the unwillingness to publish a step-by-step guide of "how to make a release" with simultaneous unwillingness to make releases. I bet if there appeared an actor actually willing to take up maintainership of Xorg, that actor would be actively smeared, gatekept and bottlenecked to death by the current Xorg gatekeepers because Xorg dying and their crippled darling taking over is their dream.

I think we're largely in agreement. I just got the impression that you treated X developers as a homogenous group who all think that what happened was the best thing. That's not the case.