Re: Merging with a WG

Yes, some WebApps members also mentioned IP issues, and I do not have any
information that this concern has changed.  However, IP issues can often be
addressed by having a very well-defined scope.  This is why I expect more
success this time with the publishing our first draft of the spec (and thus
also have an inherently well-defined scope).

But we should also explore other options as well, so nominations for other
existing W3C WGs, as well as potentially forming a new WG, should be
considered. Also, Jim's comments are pertinent here. [1]
/Glen Shires

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0002.html

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:

> Glen, beyond the spec and scope WebApps members also mentioned IP issues
> the last time this was brought up. Do you have any information that this
> concern has changed since then or do you plan to contact WebApps again
> prior to our proposal being ready?
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Deborah Dahl <
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
>
>> We should review the earlier email traffic with WebApps and make sure we
>> can address their concerns before reopening the discussion with them. ***
>> *
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2012 9:50 PM
>> *To:* Jim Barnett; Glen Shires
>>
>> *Cc:* public-speech-api@w3.org
>> *Subject:* RE: Merging with a WG****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I would also support a move to WebApps.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The main questions for me relate to logistics.  I’m assuming that Glen
>> would put together the charter proposal, correct?  What would be the
>> timeline?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:02 PM
>> *To:* Glen Shires; Young, Milan
>> *Cc:* public-speech-api@w3.org
>> *Subject:* RE: Merging with a WG****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I don’t have any particular preference,  However I would note that an
>> independent working group will have the narrowest charter, and therefore
>> the fewest IP commitments.  Breadth of IP commitments may be an issue for
>> some potential participants.  It’s not an issue for Genesys and I think
>> that we will join no matter where it ends up, but I would like to see the
>> broadest participation possible.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> **-          **Jim ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:57 PM
>> *To:* Young, Milan
>> *Cc:* public-speech-api@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Merging with a WG****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Yes, I'd like to hear everyone's nominations for potential W3C WGs.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I nominate WebApps. Prior to forming this CG we explored adding it to the
>> charter of WebApps, but that was hindered by a lack of specific spec/scope.
>> I expect more success this time because we'll be approaching them after
>> publishing our first draft of the spec (and thus also have an inherently
>> well-defined scope). ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> /Glen Shires****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Although traffic on this list has lately been sparse, I believe this
>> community has generally made good progress cleaning up the XG report into
>> something that will be palatable to browser vendors.  I trust that once
>> northern hemisphere summer projects and vacations draw to a close, we will
>> resume discussions and publish our first draft in time for TPAC.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I suggest that we use this break to begin planning our transition into a
>> formal Working Group.  My goal would be to have the structure in place by
>> TPAC so that would could kickoff meaningful discussions F2F.  Do other
>> folks in this community support that goal?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> A significant part of merging into a WG is finding the right home.
>> Several of us prefer the idea of merging with an existing group while some
>> have suggested a new group.  I suggest we start that decision by reaching
>> out to the existing groups to see if the charters are mutually compatible.
>> If we can find a compatible home, then we put it as a vote to this group
>> whether to join.  If we cannot find a compatible group by TPAC, then we
>> create our own.  Does this sound like an acceptable proposal?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Milan****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>