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

RE: Co-chair

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:05:06 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810658170C@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, <schepers@w3.org>, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <olli@pettay.fi>, <bringert@google.com>, <satish@google.com>, <raj@openstream.com>, <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, <public-speech-api@w3.org>, "Glen Shires" <gshires@google.com>
I would like to see this work transitioned to a formal W3C working group as soon as possible. 


-          Jim 


From: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org); Ian Jacobs
Cc: olli@pettay.fi; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com; raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com; public-speech-api@w3.org; Jim Barnett; Glen Shires
Subject: RE: Co-chair


We could use some advice from the W3C staff.


Four of us feel that we need to open up the leadership of this group to include someone from the speech industry.  In our view, having the chair and both editors from a single company does not yield democratic results.  Two company representatives oppose.


I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea of a vote because I feel it will hinder progress going forward.  In my view, if Google does not want to voluntarily share in the leadership we would be better off transitioning this effort to a formal W3C WG with attached staff.  Is there precedent for such a move?





From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:20 AM
To: Glen Shires; Young, Milan
Cc: olli@pettay.fi; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com; raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: Co-chair


I would  like to return to the question of how decisions get made in this group.  A number of us would like to see Milan as co-chair.  Will there be a vote?  If so, how many votes do we need?  If there  isn't going to be a vote, then what process is there?  


-          Jim


From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:09 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: olli@pettay.fi; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com; raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: Co-chair



I feel that you may be under a mistaken impression about the goals and structure of this group.


The goal and scope of this Community Group was clearly defined when this CG was proposed. [1]

That same goal and scope has been prominently displayed at the top of the CG's home page since the group was formed. [2]  


That goal and scope clearly states that the this group would NOT use the Speech Incubator Group's Final Report as a starting point, but rather a simplified subset API, such as this proposal [3].


All who joined this CG agreed to that goal and scope. I view it as my duty as chair to ensure that this CG stays true to the goal and scope that we all have agreed to, as anything else would be an abuse of the W3C policies.


In the two months since this CG was formed, I believe this group has done a remarkable job of "bringing both sides to the table" and reaching consensus on many challenging points in the spec. As a recent example, the EMMA wording, which is now in the spec [4], is a combination of ideas and proposed wording from many people (including yourself), and I believe the result is now a much stronger and more precise description that benefits web developers and supports key use cases.


I believe we are rapidly converging on completing a specification with a "simplified subset API that will accelerate implementation, interoperability testing, standardization and ultimately developer adoption", and that "supports the majority of use-cases in the the Speech Incubator Group's Final Report". [5]


If you feel strongly that a new effort should be begun that starts with the Speech Incubator Group's Final Report, then you are free to propose a new CG or WG with that specific goal and scope clearly defined.  However, your input, thoughts and wording have been invaluable to this CG, and I hope that you will continue to participate in this CG with us.


Glen Shires


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Apr/0000.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/community/speech-api/

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-1696/speechapi.html

[4] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html#dfn-emma

[5] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html#use_cases



On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:15 PM, 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.


-----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.


>.  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 15:06:13 UTC

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