An open governance model for the AMP Project
This move is aimed to quell the critique based on a hypothetis that contributions to AMP that go against Google&#x27;s vision would be rejected. It also is a move in good faith to transition the project&#x27;s governance away from Google to a goal-oriented crew of many interested parties who can derive benefit from its solutions.<p>I&#x27;ve written about AMP on here a lot [1], and frequently include this disclaimer. My views on it have evolved as time went on, being more sympathetic to some of the critiques, but also to the efforts of the AMP team to address many of the complaints.<p>While a number of technical critiques to AMP remain, increasingly, the criticism is:<p>- ideological (e.g. &quot;Google is trying to destroy the open web&quot;),<p>- misinformed (e.g. &quot;Google is stealing traffic from publishers&quot;),<p>- nihilist (e.g. &quot;everyone who uses AMP only does so because you need it to rank high in search&quot;),<p>- full of naïve bravado (e.g. &quot;all we need is clean HTML&quot;),<p>- or related to the fact that Google&#x27;s mobile search page has stealth-morphed into a captive newsreader that surfaces AMP-ified articles with Javascript without ever leaving the page.<p>Out of these, the lattermost is the only one that raises a true anticompetitive concern, which Google seems keen on ignoring. However, I&#x27;d say that&#x27;s for the Google Search team, rather than the AMP team, to address.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?query=niftich "AMP"&amp;sort=byDate&amp;type=comment" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hn.algolia.com&#x2F;?query=niftich "AMP"&amp;sort=byDat...</a>