RE: Merging with a WG

The VoiceBrowser Group would also be a candidate, but I understand that
some potential participants objected to it in the past.  This work could
also be seen as an extension of the webRTC work, but that group may not
want to expand its charter.  Speech-enabling a HTML page certainly
sounds "multi-modal" to me, so that the MultiModal Working Group would
also be a possibility.

 

Genesys would be willing to see the work happen in any of these groups,
or in WebApps, or in a separate group.  We do not have a strong
preference.  

 

-          Jim

 

From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Satish S
Cc: Deborah Dahl; Young, Milan; Jim Barnett; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: 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