I'm not a fan of the 2d graphics proposal, some for reasons specific to it (I think it's too like the HTML5 Canvas API) some for more philosophical reasons like 2D graphics is a big subject that may not be possible to standardize in a way that pleases enough people. It's true that the existence of the proposal demonstrates the committee has realized graphics programmers had needs! The discussion around it too does a lot to put the kind of problems we have to work with on the map.

Anyway, originally in my OP, I read the blog post and at the end, he was saying to people that have any industry-specific concern with the way they use C++, and the way C++ is changing, to get involved. I was just saying, as a C++ end-user, even one who cares enough to write this, there is no readily accessible way to do that, because I don't work with anyone who's already on the committee nor at Microsoft. So it feels a bit like an empty rebuttal on his side. Writing this here, it's basically the longest discussion I've ever had my whole career with people who really know deep things about C++ and the process it's made by. I'm glad for it but I'm clearly not the demographic the original blogger was addressing! Even though I definitely feel those same issues he outlines.