W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-speech-api@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Co-chair

From: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:58:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEE5bchYrRLV_WsfKVj0Y4V+n1jkWnrCWr7A65=9wfQkanDctw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "Raj (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
The current Speech API spec supports the vast majority of use cases defined
by the HTML Speech XG group, as listed in Section 3. [1]

Support for EMMA has been agreed upon. What we do not yet have consensus on
is should the Speech API specify a more stringent spec than EMMA 1.0. [2]

/Glen Shires

[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0048.html

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

> Thank you Raj and Deborah for your support.  As for the questions coming
> from Google, I'd like to answer like this...
>
> The HTML Speech XG group recently spent over a year gaining consensus on
> the use cases and requirements needed for an HTML Speech integration.  The
> findings were supported by several browser companies (including Google) and
> various expert representatives from the speech industry.
>
> Support for EMMA (FPR-4) was the second-most demanded feature of such an
> API, yet this group has been haggling since inception on whether we need
> such a feature at all.  It would be one thing if the arguments were part of
> a grass roots movement across the industry, but they are not.  The
> opponents are almost unanimously aligned under the Google flag which holds
> both the chair and editor positions.  This doesn't feel like a community.
>
> That said, I think both Hans and Glen have done a nice job whittling away
> at some of the baggage on the XG report that presented a barrier for
> browser adoption.  But I firmly believe that if we are to ever gain
> consensus on what an HTML/Speech marriage should be (prerequisite to a
> standards-track spec), we need equal participation from the speech industry.
>
> Thanks
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raj (Openstream) [mailto:raj@openstream.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:13 PM
> To: Deborah Dahl; 'Glen Shires'; Young, Milan
> Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Co-chair
>
> +1, I agree with Dr.Dahl and support Milan's candidacy for co-chair
> position
> for the CG.
> --
> Raj Tumuluri
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:21:18 -0400
>  "Deborah Dahl" <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
> > I think it would be very helpful to have Milan as a co-chair. I think
> >having  part of the CG's  leadership come from the speech industry will
> >help us  strike the appropriate balance between simplicity and
> >functionality for an  API that's widely useful in a range of
> >development scenarios.
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 3:45 PM
> > To: Young, Milan
> > Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Co-chair
> >
> >
> >
> > Milan,
> >
> > I believe we are in agreement on all three priorities that you list,
> >and  that this CG is rapidly converging on a spec that meets those
> >criteria.
> > (Note that this CG was formed just over two months ago).
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe the simple, informal structure that we have now is working
> >well.
> > We have healthy email discussions of the pros/cons of various issues,
> >and we  are converging on resolutions. Are there specific issues that
> >you believe  are not being addressed or resolved by the group in a
> >timely manner?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Glen Shires
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Young, Milan
> ><Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I believe our community group has matured to the point where we would
> >benefit from a second chair.  I would like to volunteer for this
> >position.
> >
> >
> >
> > If I were elected, I would operate on the following priorities:
> >
> > .       Develop a specification that is attractive to the browser
> >vendors.
> > This means cutting feature which are difficult to implement in the
> >interest  of widespread adoption.  I believe Glen and I are aligned on
> >this point.
> >
> > .       Support a range of development use cases from the casual web
> >authors
> > to the professionals.  This means making the easy things as easy as
> >possible  while at the same time giving the power users the features
> >they need for  enterprise-grade applications.
> >
> > .       Plan to merge our work into an official standards-track
> >deliverable
> > within the next year.
> >
> >
> >
> > If any of you support these goals and believe I am qualified to
> >fulfill  these duties, please make your support known to this list.  If
> >you have  concerns regarding my abilities or would prefer another
> >representative,  please also feel free to discuss.
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that the CG process doesn't define a formal process for chair
> >elections
> > [1].  There is only the simple statement: "The participants of the
> >Group
> > choose their Chair(s)."
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:
> THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION,
> AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL
> IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS
> E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR
> BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU
> IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
> Reply to : legal@openstream.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:59:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 00:59:29 GMT