Re[2]: charter update with two year cycle

 >I’m sure the chairs are listening

We sure are.

J

------ Original Message ------
From: "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
To: "Katie Haritos-Shea" <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: 10/10/2016 10:01:47
Subject: 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
>