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

Re: Co-chair

From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:44:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7R=pH_TAgShY=tOKK6BXQLnzP2E5VC057N3MCKA8vkc_JQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "Raj (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
>
> 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.
>

Looking back at the mailing list archives, it is clear that most of the
questions about EMMA usage were raised by me and I am neither a chair nor
an editor. Adding more chairs to the CG isn't going to change this. To
their credit both Glen and Hans have been trying find a common language
among all the discussions.

Also note that all of my proposals and questions come from my web developer
background and such perspectives are something the group will get a lot
when taking the API proposal to the standards track.

What we clearly need is to get more web developers and UA vendors
participate, not more chairs or editors.
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 09:58:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 09:58:38 GMT