2. Why is it being framed as me forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP shouldn't exist" model, instead of Google forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP should exist" model?
3. You're talking about me as a consumer. As a publisher, I don't want to use AMP, but I want the favorable SERP placement that comes with using AMP. I think that my website satisfies the actual goal behind AMP, of loading fast. But that isn't enough, and I have to use AMP - and force my visitors to either use AMP or click through AMP (making it slower, and defeating the point of everything). As a publisher I'm actually pretty excited about the webpackage stuff (and it'll be straightforward since I'm using a static site generator), but it's still not the same as being able to run a real website that actually loads quickly.
4. None of this answers my question, which is not "How do I, personally, avoid using AMP" but "Does the AMP open governance model, in which people can allegedly become involved in setting the direction of AMP, allow people the opportunity to make AMP cease to exist"?
5. Google's monopoly power in search results and vertical integration makes everything more complicated. Electron does not have monopoly power on native apps, and nobody is giving an artificial boost to native apps that are written in Electron. Any advantage to Electron is due to Electron's own technical merits.
My bet is that the majority of people on the AMP advisory committee are primarily there because they need to avoid unfavorable placement on the Google SERP and so they're forced to implement AMP and want to make sure they can still render half-decent web pages using AMP, not because they inherently like AMP.