The first paragraph of the abstract:

"This paper describes the goals and priorities which the authors believe make C++ an especially effective programming language for our use cases. That said, our experience, use cases, and needs are clearly not those of every user. We aren’t pushing to directly build consensus on these points. Rather, this is presented as a vehicle to advertise our needs from C++ as a high-performance systems language."

I would say they are quite transparent about that...

>> This proposal should read "Google's Goals and Priorities for C++"

> I would say they are quite transparent about that...

I don't even see the word "Google" anywhere?

I don't think the intended audience of this document is hacker news, it's the C++ language committee. So the question is whether the members of the committee would recognize the authors as belonging to Google (which I assume they would).

Except that the very next paragraph clearly shows that this isn't just a statement of their priorities and goals, it is what they want the entire committee to adopt as the priorities and goals for the future evolution of the standard.

"Rather, this is presented as a vehicle to advertise our needs from C++ as a high-performance systems language."

I read it as as "We understand that this isn't what everyone wants the committee to adopt, but this is what we want the committee to adopt."

I would say not, as that’s what every standards body should say. It doesn’t speak to being dominated by one stakeholders point of view.

it is not only Google, Nvidia is also there and sandia (as an HPC user). I.e. those that don't distribute software but build their own stuff.

Well, nvidia does distribute software, but its users are happy to recompile it seems.