They vetoed an otherwise-popular proposal to grant teeth to the privacy working group. That is worse than vetoing a single proposal. It comes off as Google preserving their ability to do whatever they want in the W3C.
I fail to see how this preserves some ability of Google to do whatever they like at the W3C. I see it as highlighting exactly why Google can't do whatever they like at the W3C. Just as their single vote prevented this change any other single voting organization could block whatever Google wants to do at the W3C.
The real problem is that Google, due to ownership of Blink/Chrome, has so much power de facto that the W3C process cannot meaningfully prevent them from doing whatever they like anyway - if W3C doesn't follow, it risks a repeat of WHATWG.
Looks like everyone has the right to veto (hence, this outcome from a year and a half ago), and they vetoed forming a small committee that would thus have an exclusive veto.
Apple's been kneecapping the web for years with the dual argument "you cant have WebUSB/Bluetooth and be private, permission dialogs don't count." After allowing iOS to make the opposite trade-off while confusingly marketing their phones as "what happens on your phone stays on your phone", and making Facebook a central authentication mechanism in iOS 4 and pushing devs to use it to "hurt Google", allowing them to obfuscate their vetoes via an exclusive smaller group seems blinkered.
