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

Re: Co-chair

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:42:44 +0300
Message-ID: <4FD7C5E4.8060106@helsinki.fi>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
CC: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "gshires@google.com" <gshires@google.com>, "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>
On 06/12/2012 10:31 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
> 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

How does a co-chair improve the effectiveness of the CG?
A chair shouldn't really affect to the spec. Editors of a spec do a lot more.
Editors pick up the change requests from the group and update the 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?
> Thanks
> *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.
> Jim
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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.
> +1
> --
> 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 22:43:33 UTC

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