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

RE: Co-chair

From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:17:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJtyJaXB6q9dahLUmyyo+A-j8LN4d3_Nh96Uq-A8H6jbq43KQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org, "Raj, (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, "gshires@google.com" <gshires@google.com>, "dahl@conversational-technologies.com" <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, "satish@google.com" <satish@google.com>
A W3C spec doesn't force anyone to do anything. Browser vendors will always
have a choice in what they implement.

On Jun 13, 2012 4:15 AM, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:

> Olli, You mentioned that a chair shouldn't affect the spec, but in this
> case, that's exactly what happened.  We had a spec and we had agreement on
> that spec.  Our chair should have taken that spec and used it as a starting
> point.  Instead, our chair snipped out the features that were important to
> Google, and produced a document that was feature-wise almost identical to
> the Google proposal from nearly two years ago.  Such behavior is an abuse
> of the W3C name.
>
> My goal as chair would be to bring both sides back to the table.  The
> speech industry must realize that the browser vendors are the gateway to
> their applications.  The spec must be easy to implement if we are to gain
> traction on adoption.  On the other side, the browser vendors must realize
> that the speech industry has decades of experience building professional
> grade voice and multi-modal applications.  If the target audience is to be
> anything more that the casual hacker, the spec must have their endorsement.
>
> Furthermore, to address Satish and Bjorn's point below, the missing
> browser vendor(s) are not going to start participation until they have no
> choice but to participate.  The only way to force their hand is to present
> a unified front with a real W3C specification.  We need each other to do
> that and I sincerely hope you will join me.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olli Pettay [mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: Young, Milan
> Cc: Jim Barnett; gshires@google.com; bringert@google.com;
> satish@google.com; raj@openstream.com;
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com; public-speech-api@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Co-chair
>
> 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.
>
>
> -Olli
>
>
> >.  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 Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:17:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:17:42 GMT