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?