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

Re: Co-chair

From: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:01:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEE5bcgLvFZw7Vp_b0pjaqZF9EVib0xH6KpPsNYxvxzBJVJZtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org>
Cc: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.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>
Changes to the spec and to the structure of this CG are decided by rough
consensus. There is no clear consensus on the co-chair proposal, so there
will be no changes in the structure of this CG at this time.

Glen Shires

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org> wrote:

> I am opposed to to adding any further chairs.
>
> If a chair must be added, I cannot endorse anyone who campaigns for the
> position by attacking the other chairs and the specification.  The
> standards process is based on collaboration and consensus.  Disagreements
> are certain to occur as the diversity of backgrounds and goals will
> motivate individuals to argue for different directions, but decorum is
> required at all times.
>
> I have not seen sufficient traffic on the list or heard any complaints
> from the current chair to suggest that additional editors are required for
> this specification.  Should the chair and existing editors feel that help
> is required, I trust that they will speak up.
>
> -=- Jerry
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2012, at 11:15 PM, Young, Milan 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 canít 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:
> >>
> >> ē       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 15:02:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 June 2012 15:02:50 GMT