Jeffrey: they would like comments by next week.

Matthew: when APA looked at it... we did't have a11y-specific things... but it's hard to see how this can be translated into actionable... I think it's ok for it to be high level but if you can't imagine how it can be actioned then it's difficult. So being a bit more positive / action oriented is a good thing.

Jeffrey: I don't want to block it from being published until it's perfect.

Martin: I think this document misses the thing that W3C provides : technical competence in developing standards. This document ignores that. So I'm not happy with it. The entire basis for credibility is that it produces technical standards...

Amy: vision for w3c section ... I think we could capture what Martin suggested .. technical and credibility...

Yves: considering who is working on it - I think it's better to send them an issue rather than a PR - that keeps the ownership of the text.

Jeffrety: that's fine with me...

Dan: let's agree our comment by next week - meantime I will have a back-channel discussion to give them a heads-up.

we go through potential TAG feedback to the proposed W3C Vision with Tantek

we make progress on our consolidated feedback and agree with Tantek to file some issues and leave additional feedback soon

Drafting a comment in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bqQ1vSO2NP94mF43Pj_MSMD20OJcdHhV5rgz5w3ihXs/edit?tab=t.0

Jeffrey: a bunch of issues to iterate on. Question of publishers in the priority of constituencies. They have adjusted it.. Chris is going to draft text to make it a full ordering. They added publishers and removed web authors.. we should consider if we want to consider publishers.

Martin: I have draft text with a hyperlink to the design principles

Jeffrey: just to delegate to DP?

Martin: yes, much cleaner, I'll leave a comment

Jeffrey: sounds like they want to explicitly mention publishers to distinguish..

Martin: they should bring that to DP

Jeffrey: say this in issue 216 in their repo? I do think they're reasonable to say something about members. Point to priority and say members participate as whoever they are in the priority

Martin: that would be my preference. That may be the case for publishers as well.

Peter: a member can be representing any of the other categories or multiple. Probably intention was to state that members don't have any special place just by virtue of being members

Jeffrey: will figure out what to say as the TAG on the issue

Peter: Chris' last comment was taking a stab at reordering. I prefer Martin's take of just linking.

Jeffrey: I'll get something drafted tomorrow or someone else is welcome to.

The TAG <!-- oh yeah, do we just say "TAG believes" like "W3C believes"?--> believes that the main source of conflict here is any attempt to reformulate this statement, which puts the AB and TAG into an unnecessary conflict in terms of who owns the priority of constituencies.

It would be best if there is a single formulation of this important principle.

If there is a place for publishers, we should discuss that in the context of the design principles.

We also discussed the role of W3C members and feel that it would be OK for this document to clarify that "W3C member" has no inherent ordering, as below.

Hence, we suggest:

Put users first: W3C prioritizes the interests of various stakeholders according to the priority of constituencies. W3C members are not listed in that ordering; they assume a position in the ordering according to the role they act in.

Jeffrey: we haven't heard back about any of the other issues. Chris H proposed a positive vision for the web that we might consider, figure out if that would solve the problem

Martin: if we're going to develop a vision for the web it should be more substantial than four bullet points, a whole document.

Jeffrey: could start positive vision for web doc but don't have much content yet

Martin: Vision should not just be internally facing, which this is almost entirely. The future you'd like to see. Title is wrong.