About the objection to community group charter

I was pretty disappointed that we weren't able to get to full consensus 
on the community group charter this meeting, and even more so since I 
may have been the source of part of the objection.

Per my notes, it sounds like the objector's three primary concerns are 
as follows:

1. *Objector's issues were not given sufficient discussion or review in 
this or previous meetings*. I want to personally apologize for this, 
since it sounds like I was the one who unfairly squelched the previously 
raised request for cleaner commits and better commit messages. I'm sorry 
about this; I should have been more open to continued conversation on 
the issue.

2. *The reasons for changing the Chair selection process from the 
default boilerplate in the charter template to the current process are 
unclear*. I believe issue #32 Method of choosing chairs in the CG 
Charter <https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/issues/32> does 
raise the question of how to choose chairs, and I recommended adopting 
the boilerplate method. PR #10 
<https://github.com/swicg/potential-charters/pull/10> is where the 
specifics are defined, and there is some conversation on that PR, but 
it's true that the motivation isn't given. I wonder if Juan could give 
some explanation of why this process is preferable, if it would overcome 
this objection?

3.*There are specifics to the Chair selection process currently in the 
charter that the Objector thinks are wrong*. If this is the case, we 
probably need to list those specifics and possibly amend them.

I think we can reach consensus on this issue, and hopefully move forward 
on the charter. I assume this discussion falls under the "14 days for 
objections" CfC period.

Finally, I offered to create a separate changelog for the CG charter 
document; I'll try to get it finished this weekend.

Evan