The editor and chair of the Vision Task Force met with W3C team members working on a proposed update to the W3C mission statement and we (VisionTF) are currently waiting on an updated proposal for presentation to the Task Force. We hope to see this proposed update sometime this month or next month.

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2024/269/t4/)

At this point, based on the conversation we had, I'm removing "needed for statement" as I'm confident we are aligned well enough between the two, and I don't think there will be action items needed for an initial Statement. There may be additional tweaking needed in the future, of course, but I don't think it should block going to Statement.

Should we just close this issue then? Since at this point it's just a reminder to the Team to keep things in sync as needed, and I think we can let them handle such tracking.

Should we just close this issue then?

No, because this issue as named is to “integrate” which is still a pending task separate from the Team task of “updated proposal”.

just a reminder to the Team to keep things in sync as needed

No, that is missing half the point of this issue. By “in both directions” (per issue description) I believe it means that the chair/editor of the Vision have explicit work to do in the direction of incorporating content into the Vision document.

I disagree with “Candidate to Close” and do not think it needs AB time to discuss closing at this time, thus am removing that label.

If you believe this issue needs explicit sync-discussion by the AB at this time, please add “Agenda+” instead with your goals for discussion.

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2024/274/t1/)

The editor and chair of the Vision Task Force met with W3C team members working on a proposed update to the W3C mission statement and we (VisionTF) are currently waiting on an updated proposal for presentation to the Task Force.

The Comm Team has a proposal.
Edit 2024-10-17: "That proposal uses ingredients of a strong mission statement: who, what, how, for whom, why."

We'll ask for AB meeting agenda time in the coming week(s). \o/

The abstract claims this document "articulates the W3C's mission".

First it is not obvious that it does that. It explains the vision that underpins the mission. As mentioned in #188 (I'm fine with closing that as a subset), there is a specific web page that articulates the mission.

Second, I think that gettig the abstract a bit more right is worth doing Before making this a W3C statement.