Who is steering Scripture Burrito?

[mvahowe]

The question seems important given

#347

where there seems to be a unilateral, AI-Slop-enabled plan to remove features that were proposed and implemented by two founding members of the SB committee (@joelthe1) and which have been extensively used across the world.

The ecosystem I work with has a growing list of extensions we need for the SB standard. But there seems little point in proposing them if the driving ethic of the SB committee is wanton destruction.

Is there an SB committee at this point? Does it ever meet? Does it ever talk to stakeholders?

[mvahowe]

Also, how do unilateral, AI-Slop-enabled changes end up in the official and current documentation, while the issue for the changes is still open? Is SB really whatever one man thinks on any particular day at this point?

[mvahowe]

I'm going to escalate this to ETEN, very publicly, on August 1st, unless whoever is running things here begins showing signs of accountability and transparency. Unilaterally deleting 80% of an open standard while misrepresenting almost every pertinent fact is not ok.