1. Often the feedback goes completely to the wrong address. You won't stop Google from doing google things. 2. Most often the depth level at which the discussions on web standard are made will alienate most people, so instead of participating in "standards making" they turn somewhere else (1.).
The web is awesome and it got awesome because for the first 15 years of its existence it was actually very straight forward to run a web entity. But success brought ever growing companies and ever more complex interests. The discussions also vary a lot nowadays. There are still things being done to make the web more approachable but at the same time we see stuff like "Web Environment Integrity", DRM etc.
The problem is that a process that requires the public to be vigilant will eventually fail if the public cannot appoint people to be vigilant full time for them.
It also takes a lot of time. You have to read quite a few proposals, and there are literally hundreds of them, you have to participate in discussions in the GitHub issues, on the w3c mailing list, and in multiple face-to-face discussions.
Even the most technical people find this daunting because they are not paid for this (unlike the people making and promoting the specs). So even the technical people often come into an issue, voice their concerns briefly (or not-so-briefly) and are summarily dismissed.
I've seen Google engineers misrepresent and ignore any input from engineers working on Firefox and Safari, and just push their specs forward. So what chance does an outsider have?
It's a mess.
Granted, it's a better mess because so many discussions are happening in the open unlike 10-15 years ago, but it's still a mess.
As I say in the original comment > process will ... eventually fail if the public cannot appoint people to be vigilant full time for them.
And I was exactly thinking of paid full time work.