Re: Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

Alastair,

This was a brainstorming session. Amazing that you found this.

I do not believe 2 or 3 years is appropriate.

I wish you could also do a search on how many times, over the past decade
or so, I explained that it takes time to implement standards in government.

I agree with Jason that the right way forward is to remove the material
giving rise to controversy from the draft Charter - or bring those govies
to a WG meeting call.

Thanks.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 14, 2016 1:34 AM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> Katie wrote:
> > "We got here by throwing in the 'every two year update' idea just a
> short time ago. (However, that idea may have been hovering in some minds a
> bit longer)"
>
> Yes, I thought this was from around the time we were discussing how 2.1 &
> sliver would work. I was checking back as I couldn't remember, and 2 years
> was in your mind as well:
>
> "Katie: You can't change it every 6 months, but you can do it
>     every 2 years -- especially if you tell them that it will be
>     updated every 2 years.
>     ... then we have to organize the process so it can be
>     expeditiously updated every 2 years."
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016JanMar/0367.html
>
> The feedback from Gov sources so far hasn't been too difficult, I'm not
> saying that is settled, but it doesn't seem to be to enough to delay the
> charter for what happens *after* this charter.
>
>
> > "The *original* plan was a stable complete 2.1 standard."
>
> As I recall that wasn't the case, the question was whether there was a 2.2
> or Silver would be in time to pick up the remainder there.
>
> I think Andrew answered more completely whilst I was writing this, so I'll
> stop there. Overall though, I'm not seeing a recent change, except perhaps
> the SCs from the task forces are crystallising more clearly.
>
> -Alastair