[CCWG-ACCT] Timeline and next steps (updated)

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:44:01PM +0000, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
> Andrew,
> 
> The external deadline is artificial. There is no reason why the current contract could not be extended by a month to accommodate the longer comment period. For that matter it could be extended by a year and ended by mutual agreement whenever the proposal is approved and implemented.

I think this is a matter of disagreement, and not a fact.  If one
accepts that, in good faith, the chairs have accepted that external
deadline as real, then the internal dates are neither artificial nor
designed to be exclusionary.

If one believes that the external deadline is artificial, then I can
see an argument that the internal ones are also thereby artificial.  I
think the claim that the external deadline is artificial, however, is
need of rather better arguments (which boil down to, "I disagree")
than I have so far seen.  As someone who grew up outside the US but
who is now living in New Hampshire (and whose office is about to be,
um, blessed by its fourth or fifth presidential candidate visit this
year), I find the worries about the US political calendar quite
compelling, but I appreciate not everyone will agree.

I still think it is quite unfair to say the dates are designed to be
exclusionary.  I've seen absolutely no evidence that anyone in this
group is trying to exclude anyone else, and I have to say that I've
received only good-will interactions with respect to any remarks I
have made despite having stood mostly as an outsider throughout the
CCWG work.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com