Re: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

Apologies.  I didn't realize I had not voted.

+1 to the charter compromise language.

On 10/13/2016 5:57 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Sorry Jason, the question was just for you to state whether you could 
> live with the consensus.
> Right now, “yes” votes are:
> Joshue
> Michael
> Rachael Bradley Montomery
> Alan Smith
> Alastair Campbell
> Wilco Fiers
> Srinivasu Chakravathula
> Sarah Horton
> Steve Faulkner
> David MacDonald
> Makoto Ueki
> Leonie Watson
> March Johlic
> Shawn Lauriat (after deadline)
> Glenda Sims (after deadline)
> No votes are:
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Not clear votes are
> Jason White
> Vivienne Conway
> So, can you live with it as it is?
> Thanks,
> Can you live with the compromise?
> */[Jason] If everyone else can live with the compromise, I can too, 
> but this doesn’t appear to be the case according to the latest 
> discussion on the list. I think the right way forward is to remove the 
> material giving rise to controversy from the draft Charter, to proceed 
> with the charter process, and to develop plans beyond WCAG 2.1 in the 
> Project Plan, where they can be updated as the group’s thinking evolves./*
> */I think the language about the possibility of proceeding directly to 
> version 3.0 or, instead, possibly introducing further 2.x releases 
> should remain in the Charter as a clear indication of the alternatives 
> before the Working Group at the end of the 2.1 process./*
> In other words, I don’t wish to block a consensus here, but nor do I 
> think I’m alone in having residual issues with the compromise, and I 
> think the approach that I’ve recommended is the one that would attract 
> the least dissent, given recent discussions.

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 12:49:49 UTC