phase: [1] status: Live page; form URL placeholder pending user creation authored: 2026-05-21 authority_anchor: standards/webgcporg/CLAUDE.md (engineer-to-engineer prose); standards/external-communication.md (tone) publishes_to: webgcp.org/contact/


Get in touch — webGCP

webGCP is at Step 2.5 of its 6-step standards playbook: drafted + first L0 reference instance live; 3-month Use-alone soak in progress (earliest exit 2026-08-16). We're actively looking for:

If any of those apply (or any other reason to be in touch), the paths below.

Direct email — fastest for technical / spec questions

ops@webgcp.org

Cite the spec section number (e.g., "§5.4 CEL evaluation question") for the fastest response. Response SLA: 5 business days.

For issue-filing specifically, use subject prefix [issue] and reference the section number. A public issue tracker is pending working-group convening at Step 5+; until then we track issues internally and reference responses in future revisions. When the WG convenes, issue-filing moves to github.com/webgcp/* (future-tense location per standards/CLAUDE.md rule #3).

Collaboration intake form

For structured intake — implementer interest, standards-body collaboration, operator adoption, research engagement — use the collaboration intake form:

collaboration-intake-form  (7 fields; ~2 minutes)

Form submissions go to ops@webgcp.org. Response SLA: 5 business days unless you explicitly opt out.

What we're looking for, concretely

You are We'd value Path
A large company evaluating adoption A 30-min spec-walkthrough call Email or form (field 4 = Implementing)
A standards-body participant (IETF DNSOP / W3C CG / Linux Foundation / AAIF) An intro to the relevant working group Email or form (field 4 = Standards-body)
An independent implementer Permission to add you to /implementations/ when conformant Email or form (field 4 = Implementing)
A researcher writing about agent-context protocols Citation accuracy check; spec clarifications Email with section numbers
A reviewer with substantive critique A reply, and a maturity-flag update in the spec if you find a gap Email with [issue] prefix
A casual reader Nothing required — read the spec n/a

What this is not

Cross-references