Re: joining a working group

Hi,


I explicitly object HTML WG.


My preferences would be
1. WebApps WG
2. New Group
3. (WhatWG)
4. DAP WG
5. Multimodal WG


(Hard to see this stuff in Voice Browser WG, but don't object it.)



-Olli


On 08/08/2012 09:08 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
> So far, it seems that several  people think that WebApps we be a good place for us.  However, my understanding is that when we considered that group
> before, WebApps did not want to take on the work.  Can we find out if that’s still the case?   If WebApps is not a possibility, we should start the
> discussion of alternatives.
>
> In that spirit, here is a ranked list of Genesys’ preferences (excluding WebApps for the moment).  If other people would send around similar lists, we
> can start to work on a ranked set of alternatives.  In addition to the groups that your organization prefers, feel free to list the groups that your
> organization would _/not/_ want to participate in.  I think that we should aim for broad participation, so we may be better off with a group that
> everyone grudgingly accepts, rather than one that some people are quite enthusiastic about but that others refuse to join.
>
> 1. Multimodal group
>
> 2.Voice Browser Group
>
> 3.New Group
>
> 4.HTML
>
> 5.Any other existing group
>
> -Jim Barnett
>
> -P.S.  In case you’re interested in the logic of the ranking:    I’m familiar with the multimodal and voice  browser groups and think that they’re
> both in a position to make a prompt decision and take on the new work quickly. They would be the fastest way to get on a standards track.   Starting a
> new group would take more time, but it would give us a maximally narrow charter, which might increase participation.  The HTML group might also make
> sense but it’s a huge operation and I’m afraid we could get lost in it.  I don’t know enough about other groups to have an opinion, but am certainly
> willing to consider them.
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 18:22:06 UTC