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

RE: Co-chair

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:31:57 +0000
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "gshires@google.com" <gshires@google.com>
CC: "bringert@google.com" <bringert@google.com>, "satish@google.com" <satish@google.com>, "raj@openstream.com" <raj@openstream.com>, "dahl@conversational-technologies.com" <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A4728D8@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
My recollection is that IPR was a major hindrance to joining WebApps, but so was the lack of unification around the nominated subset of the XG report.  We can’t do much about the former, but we can fix the later.

I suggest that we either:

A)      Disband this community and form a new working group (outside of WebApps).  We would seed that charter with the work of the XG minus protocol and markup.  Essentially a restart of the work we begun here under equal representation.

B)      Add a representative from the speech community as co-chair to this group and proceed to deliver a candidate spec.  While I agree with Glen that we are getting close to being feature complete, there is a lot of detail to sort out and examples to add before our work here is done.  I expect this to take another 6 months to a year.  My hope is that WebApps or one of the other existing groups with strong ties to the HTML browser community would then integrate speech into their charter.

Deborah, Raj, Jim, and myself have voiced support for B.  Could we get a formal vote from Google?  Anyone else have an opinion?


From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:48 AM
To: gshires@google.com
Cc: bringert@google.com; satish@google.com; Young, Milan; raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: Co-chair

My guess is that this will have to be a new group. (My understanding is that important potential participants object to the existing working groups.). I don't think that the W3C will object to the formation of a new group, and that will allow us to have the narrowest possible charter, which should minimize IPR concerns.


From: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com<mailto:gshires@google.com>>
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com<mailto:bringert@google.com>>; Satish S <satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com>>; Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>>; Raj (Openstream) <raj@openstream.com<mailto:raj@openstream.com>>; Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com<mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com>>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org> <public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>>
Sent: Tue Jun 12 11:40:08 2012
Subject: Re: Co-chair
Yes, our plan has always been to merge our work into an official standards-track deliverable. Prior to forming this CG we explored several options, including adding it to the charter of WebApps, but that was hindered by a lack of specific spec/scope.

Now that we are getting close to completing the first draft of the spec, we should revisit putting the spec on the standards-track in WebApps and/or other W3C groups. Let me know your suggestions of potential other W3C groups.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com<mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>> wrote:
However,  I haven't seen any progress on Milan's third priority:

•       Plan to merge our work into an official standards-track deliverable within the next year.

I consider this to be very important.  I would also like to see a more formal procedure for making decisions.  I think that adding Milan as a co-chair can help in both areas.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com<mailto:bringert@google.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:05 AM
To: Satish S
Cc: Young, Milan; Raj (Openstream); Deborah Dahl; Glen Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Co-chair

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com>> wrote:
>> 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.


Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:32:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:26 UTC