Re: charter update with two year cycle

I feel a need to go a little meta on this now…



Katie wrote:

“Much like this US election cycle, a idea has been presented as a packaged unchangeable plan. Reached not via consensus, but via fiat. Take it, or ?”



This started from a draft charter put up for comment, I don’t see that as presented as fiat. I’m sure the chairs are listening, so are the rest of us.



The argument seems centered on what happens *after* this charter has expired. I assume we’re agreed on the short-term work (2.1, Silver, ACTF), so we have 2-3 years to find that compromise.



The charter [1] doesn’t mention 2.2, or any number of years between revisions, so it doesn’t seem worth this much argument. Yet. Now, where was that LVTF SC I was looking at before being distracted by email… ;-)



-Alastair



1] https://www.w3.org/2016/09/draft-wcag-charter