Hacker News Reader

Comment by dashundchen | Hacker News Reader

Looking at their technical steering committee, 3 out of 7 members are from Google, with only one from a company of what I would consider equivalent pull (Microsoft).

https://github.com/ampproject/meta-tsc

I would hardly consider Yahoo to be a leader in anything at this point, not sure about mail.ru. From an outsider's perspective AMP looks Google controlled.

It looks like from your comment history you are part of Google's AMP team. It would be nice to disclose that.

View on HN

> I would hardly consider Yahoo to be a leader in anything at this point, not sure about mail.ru.

mail.ru is owned by the same mafia group, that controls majority of Russian internet. They are either very stupid or want the same thing as Google (to destroy email as we know it). It is probably both.

Participation of mail.ru implies, that Russian mail providers won't ban Google in retaliation for this crap (neither on SMTP level nor via country-wide firewall).

Yahoo is a BIG email client.

The TSC requires majority consensus. Google does not have a majority.

Google’s three plus any one other member does, though.

Yes, but you know, that isn't Google controlling it and these are all member from major internet companies that won't take part in such a "conspiracy".

Why does Google have three members then?

Because we do the majority of the work. The governance body size will, however, expand with further non-Google members. So, the hypothetical "you just have to convince only one" is becoming less of an issue over time.

^ cramforce works for Google on AMP.

Of course it's always the benevolent Google ramming down their network down our throats. How would AMP bans work? You can't even read any email in any client?

You shouldn't comment unless you disclose that your affiliation with AMP team.

Can you remind us again how AMP for email came to be?

I remember you talking about how transparent the process is, but, alas, you never described it. And to quote another member of the discussions back then, anyone raising concerns:

> were closed or locked, and the head of AMP blocked us.

You being the head of AMP, of course.

I don't find that argument even a little persuasive. Google is the Big Dog there.

Are you going to comment on your membership to the google AMP team?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com