Give the Advisory Board a mission statement

[fantasai]

Tries to tie together the various roles of the AB under a coherent mission statement, similar to the TAG.

Based on discussions captured in

• https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/248
• https://www.w3.org/2025/03/26-ABpurpose-minutes.html
• https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/AC/ab-wendy-reid/slides.pdf

[TallTed]

Those </li> may be optional. I do not feel that such optionality means they should always be left out. To my eye, they help keep the source coherently readable, which is important since that is where the document is edited. (So far as I'm aware, there's no user-focused editing tool for .bs documents that shows the rendered result along the way.)

[tantek]

Made a couple of optional suggestions which I think improve this section along with these edits, however will defer to editor's discretion.

Rest of it is a solid incremental improvement.

[frivoal]

About the optional </li> tags, I think this is an editorial question that should be left to the editor(s). More over, the editor(s) have documented their preference in this matter for the whole document: https://github.com/w3c/process/blob/main/index.bs#L21

[chaals]

The reason for electing an Advisory Board is to provide guidance to the Team in the areas indicated on behalf of the membership, i.e. without having to poll the entire membership. That serves the Team, in enabling them to have regular input, and the members in enabling them not to have to give it as a body so often.

I think it would be helpful if that were clarified in working out this PR.

[chaals]

Suggested change

	is elected by the Membership to advance the effectiveness of W3C as a community by:
	<ul>
	<li>Providing ongoing guidance to the Team
	is elected by the Membership to provide ongoing guidance to the Team, on behalf of the Membership,

(with subsequent markup tweaks left for the editor - I think they're obvious).

[tantek]

I think "community" was simpler and provided the AB more flexibility. This particular change to focus on "SDO", while I may have my own opinions about it (leaning toward 'can live with') feels like a big enough change that I'd rather see explicit commentary from members of the current AB in support of such a focus before adding it to this PR. Maybe consider postponing this change (community/SDO) for a separate PR?

[plehegar]

The reason for electing an Advisory Board is to provide guidance to the Team in the areas indicated on behalf of the membership, i.e. without having to poll the entire membership.

That's no longer always the case since 2023.

1. the AB acts as the Working Group to revise the W3C Process, and related documents. It is no longer guiding the Team on how to revise the Process.
2. the AB is part of W3C Councils, where Team and W3C decisions can be affirmed or overturned.

So, with the exception of those 2 cases, the AB only has a guidance role, per Process 2025.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<brent> subtopic: https://github.com//pull/1021
<brent> Github: https://github.com//pull/1021
<Ian> q+
<Ian> ack florian
<Ian> ack me
<brent> ack Ian
<Ian> Ian: Given recent work to help the community understand the respective roles of the Board and AB, I think we should revisit this text and leverage the recent efforts to clarify roles.
<brent> +1
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/01/14-w3process-minutes.html TallTed

[hober]

r+ with one nit: that the discussion around line 894 and onwards gets resolved in some kind of reasonable way.

[tantek]

Thanks @hober. Yes I also agree with merging assuming the changes suggested around line 894 are incorporated as proposed, supported, and no objections in 8+ months. Leaving this as Request changes to capture that dependency. Thanks.

[brentzundel]

I am going to merge the suggestions and do an editorial pass. When I'm done I'll mark the PR as ready for review.

[chrisn]

Although I'm a Board member, I am responding as an individual, and as an AC Rep, and not on behalf of the Board.

In the interests of clarity, I suggest that the AB defines itself in its own terms, and not by its relationship to the Board of Directors.

While the AB may from time to time provide advice to the Board of Directors, that isn't its primary purpose, hence my suggestion to change to "provide ongoing guidance to W3C".

[frivoal]

Without taking a strong stance either way on the edits proposed by @chrisn , the rest looks quite good to me.

I would request that the coding style of the overall document, documented at the top of the file, be respected, notably regarding semantic line breaks. That allows for much easier diffing and iteration on suggestions. I'll make the adjustment later and rebase, but not while there are open suggestions, as that would break them.

[igarashi50]

Although I'm a Board member, I am responding as an individual, and as an AC Rep, and not on behalf of the Board.

In the interests of clarity, I suggest that the AB defines itself in its own terms, and not by its relationship to the Board of Directors.

While the AB may from time to time provide advice to the Board of Directors, that isn't its primary purpose, hence my suggestion to change to "provide ongoing guidance to W3C".

I agree with @chrisn. I believe that the role of the AB is to provide advice to the Team, but not to make suggestions to the BoD. The BoD or a member of the BoD may ask AB members for input, but the AB does not have any authority to represent the membership to the BoD. Therefore, I prefer "to the Team" over "to W3C" because it is more accurate and consistent with the AB's role.

Furthermore, I believe that a firewall is necessary between the AB and the BoD. This is because the AB provides advice to the Team, while the BoD supervises the Team, so it is important that the conclusions of both bodies remain independent.

[brentzundel]

@chrisn and @igarashi50 I have applied your suggested text, thank you for the review.

@frivoal please critique my line breaks.

[hober]

r- for the most pedantic of reasons, sorry!

[hober]

I don't think this is quite right. The AB can't promulgate a new Process without the Membership's approval (via an AC vote). I think, instead, it's the Membership that owns the Process Document, and it's delegated the maintenance of it to the AB, subject to its review and ratification.

[brentzundel]

How about

Suggested change

	<li>Owns the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,
	<li>Owns the evolution of the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,

[igarashi50]

As its name indicates, the AB is an advisory body. For the sake of separation of powers, I believe it is better not to change this, even after becoming a Members Consortium.

While I think the @brentzundel proposal is reasonable, as a non-native English speaker, I feel that "owns " might be a bit too strong in this context. Though it would be acceptable to remove "owns and", I suggest the following:

Proposed wording:
owns and steers the evolution of the Process Document.

[hober]

How about

Suggested change

	<li>Owns the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,
	<li>Owns the evolution of the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,

That works for me!

[nigelmegitt]

Fair point @hober - I don't mind the idea of "owns the evolution" or "owns and steers the evolution", but it strikes me that in any Charter this would be described as a "Deliverable" of the group, hence:

Suggested change

	<li>Owns the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,
	which includes considering proposals,
	approving changes,
	and publishing new versions.
	<li>Delivers the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,
	which includes considering proposals,
	approving changes,
	and proposing new versions
	for approval by the <a href="#AC">Advisory Committee</a>.

[brentzundel]

Suggested wording from the Process CG call

Suggested change

	<li>Owns the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,
	which includes considering proposals,
	approving changes,
	and publishing new versions.
	<li>Has responsibility for the <a href="#GAProcess">Process Document</a>,
	which includes considering proposals,
	approving changes,
	and publishing new versions.

[nigelmegitt]

The proposal from the Process CG call seems not to address @hober 's point that the AC approves the Process - I'm not sure if @hober was present in the call or not, but I thought she made an important point.

[brentzundel]

I think the change in language helps the proposed text better align with section 10 which already describes the need to take the document to the AC for review and approval. I don't think we need to reiterate section 10 here.

[brentzundel]

and section 10 is already linked to in the first line

[nigelmegitt]

Right, thanks, I see that now, makes sense.

[brentzundel]

@hober @igarashi50 what do you think of this option?

[css-meeting-bot]

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/1021.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<brent> subtopic: https://github.com//pull/1021
<brent> Github: https://github.com//pull/1021
<Ian> q+
<Ian> ack me
<Ian> Ian: I still have concerns about confusion with the Board because it is the role of the Board to provide guidance on issues of strategy, management, legal.
<Ian> Brent: I don't think it's inappropriate for the AB to comment on those topics as well (e.g., "tooling would be helpful here")
<Ian> Francois: The current PR text doesn't shock me.
<Ian> ...note also that there is a difference between "corporate strategy" and "technology strategy"
<Ian> Brent: And AB is participating in strategic initiatives.
<Ian> Brent: Because the AB is more vocal and active, it's important to have mission guidance.
<Ian> q+
<Ian> ack me
<tidoust> scribe+
<tidoust> Ian: Friendly amendment. "On technical matters" would distinguish between the AB and the Board.
<tidoust> ... Maybe "issues that arise in the course described in this Process document".
<tidoust> ... but that could be too narrow. E.g., Process does not include community groups
<Ian> Ian: How about: "..ongoing guidance to the Team on issues that arise during the course of community activities regarding strategy, ...."
<Ian> (We look at "Has responsibility for the Process Document")
<Ian> Ian: +1 to has responsibility
<tidoust> +1
<Ian> TallTed: My sense is that the word choice debate is about "too much power" or "too little power."
<Ian> Brent: Section 10 makes clear how the AB manages the process document
<Ian> Ian: Let's hear on the thread if people support "has responsibility for"