> 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".

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.

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

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

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?

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