A lot of people find out that the W3C's governance is fucked up and overly dependent on corporate sponsorship (and it is) and then assume that the WHATWG must be a better institution (it isn't).
WHATWG is, for the most part, a "what-the-major-browser-vendors-say/do-rules" org. And keep in mind, that's now just two organizations (Google and Mozilla). That's good reason for pause.
@cwebber is there something we can do to improve W3c?
The problem with this kind of corporate sponsorship is it can allow for compromised positions that never would have been taken otherwise, like https://dustycloud.org/blog/drm-will-unravel-the-web/
@maloki I've long been interested in a hacker/community-oriented standards org. IETF is the closest we have, but isn't quite that. Though one thing the W3C does have is its patent non-aggression policy, and the reason that works is that it's able to bring a bunch of corporate participants to the table. I don't think a hacker standards org could do that. (There's also some government groups that will only accept work that come from "official" standards groups.)
Maybe it's still worth trying.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!