Hey Philip, thanks for the feedback. I think the UAVCAN community agrees with you; we want to avoid fragmentation. The UAVCAN protocol needs the support of the community to prevent this.
The goals and justification behind v1 are mainly motivated by the demanding needs of the ecosystem, and the current UAVCAN implementing vendors. Pavel and Scott made an excellent summary here (Oct. 2018).
Pavel has a follow-up post (Jul 2nd) with a better context for the move and covers the benefits in full.
It’s been a long road to standardize behind v1, and there’s still lots to do. The team has a plan forward and would benefit from your support as an implementing vendor.
I think we (the UAVCAN team) understand your concerns, and we are willing to discuss how this move affects your hardware and, most importantly, how it benefits your customers. Let’s work together.