[hungryfoolish]

>Overall, I think the WHATWG structure, of being open to input from all (instead of pay-to-play),

Thats not entirely fair. The WHATWG is also pay-to-play in a way - the browser makers have disproportionally higher power, even more so than the w3c model where there is at least some form of consensus forming among a group of people with more international representation. Now technically anyone in the world can open a github issue (w3c also does it though now), but thats about what anyone can do to oppose something in the spec that the browser makers have their hearts set on.

[domenicd]

Hmm, you seem to have skipped over some of my points.

The WHATWG is open to input from all, but only things browsers are willing to ship get into the specs. So yes, that's more power. No disputing that. But I would rather not have specs full of unimplemnted fiction, even if that fiction has consensus among paying member companies.

The W3C is not open to input from all. If you open a GitHub issue contributing an idea, but do not pay member fees, they cannot incorporate your idea into the spec, because of Intellectual Property Rights concerns. There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year.

[frivoal]

> The W3C is not open to input from all. If you open a GitHub issue contributing an idea, but do not pay member fees, they cannot incorporate your idea into the spec, because of Intellectual Property Rights concerns. There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year.

This is not true: https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/#contributor-licens...

[gsnedders]

> There is no way in the W3C to say "I sign over my IPR rights" without also paying thousands of dollars per year.

Or, as you mention up-thread, get invited into the group by the chairs and with consent of the W3C staff. Which… is an opaque process, and totally non-obvious to an outsider.