I did not notice Andy Clarke's public rant about the CSS WG until someone sent me a short message about it. I read it a few minutes ago, my breakfast in hand. At some point, I stopped eating and let go a few very unpolite french words. Here's my public answer to Andy Clarke, also posted as a comment to his article :

Only a deep sense of politeness prevents me from telling precisely here what I think of your post, Andy.

Your participation in the CSS WG as an invited expert, that you raise as a battle flag, is so young that you posted only 26 messages to our mailing-list in the last twelve months, and you remained silent on the process itself, on the WG itself.

About the process itself of standardization in the CSS WG, I have two choices here ; you're incredibly naive or incredibly out of your mind. A collaborative non-partisan discussion ? BWAHAHAHA ! What do you think is a standardization body ? It's a BATTLEFIELD where vendors fight for competitive advantage. And that fight is not quiet or non-violent. Outside of that fight, we're all friends, we've been working together for so long that we know each other very well, it's a small world after all. But we all remain fierce competitors.

Read me well, because I am an old monkey, a very old monkey, in this standardization business. The more I see the crazy mess HTML 5 is becoming, the more I trust corporations in member-only discussions inside W3C. Bringing more individuals with no knowledge of the internals of a layout engine will NOT help improving CSS. We certainly need input from the designers' community, we need feedback too. But designers will always remain unable to say if a given feature is easily implementable or not.

I am really shocked by your post, and I seriously wonder what you are looking for, productivity increase or advertisement on your name.

I don't know if the CSS WG is still relevant or not. But I deeply wonder if the Web Standards Project still is relevant itself when I read articles like yours.