The problem is not wayland. I root for wayland and I hope it'll progress steadily to maturity.
The problem is getting pushed to drop my well-working Xorg-based setup for some wayland-based setup that can't run the application I use daily and that I've been running for years.
I'm okay with wayland, but I have a problem with people telling me "oh just drop that".
GP is saying yeah, that's great and all, but other people try to push everyone to switch to Wayland because <reasons>. The Wayland ecosystem simply isn't there yet though; they're hawking a broken solution.
It's perfectly fine for a FOSS developer to walk away from any given project. When third parties come along and frame things as though the only option is to switch to a broken "solution" it derails the discussion. We (ie the community at large) should be having much broader discussions about both how to keep maintenance going as well as what's needed to actually make the replacement viable (so we can maybe switch to it later).
People who had objections against systemd maintained init systems [1], created new distributions [2]. I do not pretend there are no problems with systemd but it serves my (quite common) needs. And the way distributions shows some people were burnt out.
If you need X.Org (and I do), speak how to help X.Org.
Some people needs covered by Wayland. It is not their fault.
Distributions default may be questionable, it is distributions problem not Waylands. I use Arch Linux, no default, no problems.