I'm sorry that I had to recognice, that I'm not really of help for the charta development. There are a few reasons for that. One thing is, that I'm not really fit since some time and all I do is going in daily circles - it's boring. It's hard to distinct, what I have done and what was only a thought and it is currently also hard to remember the details of what I have done yesterday. But that's only an excuse.

The real problem is, that I am too focused on my own local situation.
Last Monday I had a one hour phone talk with a young doctor who does the working group ILD in our pneumologic society. I had a reasonable long list to discuss and a few items were also sarcoidosis-specific. From that I know his solid belief from second hand experience, that sarcoidosis is a benign disease with very, very few really hard suffering people, and any lung doctor can do the treatment / handling / management of these patients.
This year Ulrich Costabel will be the key speaker on sarcoidosis at our annual congress of the pneumologic society and - despite the long list of symptoms in the misconceptions-paper (where he is co-author) and his long history in the WASOG - I fear, that this will also be the picture he will communicate. Or at least, this will be the picture which will be understood from his talk.

Therefore my main concern / interest is simply some declaration of state of the art in sarcoidosis care useable to request that also at home.

A charter in my mind is always a whish list from potential recipients, to be acknowledged by someone who is in duty for that task. This has been the case for our IPF charter, which was signed by more than half of the EU parliament and this is the case for the common Austrian patient charters, which need to be signed by every individual country (hell of federalism).
In none of these there is some talk about case numbers because these wishes / acknowledged rights need to be independent of head counts (like human rights) and - if good done - they have to be in wide ranges independent from the specific disease.

I had this charta topic under my pillow for two more weeks and the most promising exercise looks to me to advocate for WASOG clinics.
Don't get me wrong. For me these WASOG recognized clinics are more or less a valuable vehicle like the term parasarcoidosis - a chance to to keep communicating and feed all the arguments and wishes in the sideletter.
And so I would like to start with the initial draft from Chris from the 12th of June: enumerate features of WASOG clinics as caption and have our interpretation of the reason of their existence in the text body.
We should also take care, which of our wishes are sarcoidosis specific and which are not. Social burden, fatigue, problems with reimbursement, are not sarcoidosis-specific. Therefore it might be adverse, to have improvements as first claims / captions. But to have a feature of specialized care in the caption and explaining how this improves the common problems in an unique way along common patient rights - this would work for my situation in Austria.

Just a try how our wishes could be structured ... starting with the text from WASOG - Sarcoidosis Centers of Expertise and using some phrases as caption:

a multidisciplinary team of specialized medical and paramedical professionals

• The diffuse character of sarcoidosis calls for a multidisciplinary team of professionals.
• Close cooperation between medical and other professionals in these teams is necessary.

shared specialized facility that has proven sustainability over years

leadership

• [Hansi: Leadership is not about being the best - it is to make everyone better around you.]

best practices

• Patient involvement is essential in developing guidelines and undertaking research.
• Easy access for a patient to the team coordinator / primary practitioner contributes to the quality of life.

research

• Due to the fact that sarcoidosis is a rare disease effective networking between professionals, researchers and patient advocates is a key success factor in improving care and quality of life.

support and/or training for professionals

support and/or training for sarcoidosis patients

• Peer contact should be organised as close to the patients environment as possible.

should contain sarcoidosis experts in at least two different disciplines

• (don't know the definition of a "sarcoidosis expert" ...)

There are many features missing. E.g. the need/value of case numbers, which are only stated somewhere else for centers of excellence (btw., the ASV in German requires a head count of 50).
Also missing: the need to cooperate with registers.