Canonical doesn't have the expertise to create this kind of standard. They will have to do way more work, and there's no way they'll get their project done before Wayland, because Wayland is way ahead of them. Canonical could easily just create their own Wayland compositor and still call it their own, add whatever extensions they need to suit their purposes, and it would benefit everyone because we'd all be using the same standard.
Empty buzzwords and marketing speak. Unfounded assumptions. Wayland developers actually know what they're doing and there's no way Mir is going to catch up on them any time soon. Besides, if you don't like community-driven development, what are you doing using Linux? Linux is based on community development. The Linux kernel is community-driven, it's developed by developers from all over the community. And it works great - it's the largest collaborative software project in the world, bringing us the most advanced, adaptable and flexible kernel in existence.Mir is goal-driven, not community-driven, what makes Mir development much faster. They don't need to wait on agreement on the community side to make things work.
Wayland is designed for Linux, by Linux users. It is designed to work, with sound design principles and a clean codebase. Mir is just a twinkle in shuttleworth's eye at this point. What you don't get is that Wayland is a standard. There's absolutely no reason why Canonical couldn't create their own display server but make it conform to the Wayland standard. They'd still have control of the codebase if that's so crucial to them, they could add whatever extensions they wanted to support their distro-specific stuff, but they'd be working and collaborating with the ecosystem instead of fighting against it.Mir will be fully reusable with other DE's. Obviously, it will be designed to work with Unity, but it doesn't mean that running KDE or whatever won't be possible. What is Wayland designed for? Nothing.