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

RE: Co-chair

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:39:01 +0000
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "gshires@google.com" <gshires@google.com>, "jerry@jerrycarter.org" <jerry@jerrycarter.org>, "ij@w3.org" <ij@w3.org>, "schepers@w3.org" <schepers@w3.org>
CC: "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, "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: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A473120@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
While I agree that we need to move this effort to a WG, we must be careful not to splinter.

The truth is that this community has made progress cleaning up the scope of the XG report.  We also should keep in mind that a principle reason we’re in this CG instead of some of the more attractive WGs like WebApps is because we lack consensus.  Starting a new WG while the CG is still in progress will not impress anyone.

Glen, I would like to know your vision and timeline for the transition.

From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:11 AM
To: Young, Milan; gshires@google.com; jerry@jerrycarter.org; ij@w3.org; schepers@w3.org
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 think that we can move to a standards-track group at any time. The main thing that we need to do is to submit a charter, first to W3C management and then to the AC list. Dan has a draft charter, I think, that can serve as a template. Once we agree on the content, we submit it, handle any comments we get, and we're in business.


From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>>
To: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com<mailto:gshires@google.com>>; Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org<mailto:jerry@jerrycarter.org>>; Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>> (ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>) <ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>>; Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org<mailto:schepers@w3.org>) <schepers@w3.org<mailto:schepers@w3.org>>
Cc: olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi> <olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>>; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com<mailto:bringert@google.com> <bringert@google.com<mailto:bringert@google.com>>; satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com> <satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com>>; raj@openstream.com<mailto:raj@openstream.com> <raj@openstream.com<mailto:raj@openstream.com>>; dahl@conversational-technologies.com<mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com> <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: Wed Jun 13 16:38:19 2012
Subject: RE: Co-chair
Taking a step back, we’re in a situation where a Google representative decides when consensus is reached, and if we lack consensus we default to whatever Google wanted earlier.  Do the folks in this community feel this is a path to building a spec that has the broad-based support needed to attract missing browser and speech vendors?

I’d also like to call out an recent instance where consensus was reached, but the agreed changes did not make their way into the spec.  This happened near the end of the EMMA thread where Satish, Deborah, and I finally agreed to drop the requirement for EMMA attributes in exchange for adding use cases [1].  But when the changes were pushed through, they were missing the compromise text [2].  And my notification to this problem didn’t generate any response from the chair or editors [3].  This is especially worrisome given that we just published our first draft (sans compromise text) without any advanced notification, vote, or opportunity for review [4].  Perhaps this is simply a case of broken timeline expectations, but given that my requests have fallen off the proverbial radar several times before (most recently [5]), it feels like a bias is at play.

I would like to hear from others in the community on this topic.  I’m particularly interested to know thoughts around the formation of an official WG where we can produce a standards-track specification.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0060.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0061.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0062.html

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0076.html

[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0010.html

From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]<mailto:[mailto:gshires@google.com]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:02 AM
To: Jerry Carter
Cc: Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com<mailto:bringert@google.com>; satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com>; raj@openstream.com<mailto:raj@openstream.com>; dahl@conversational-technologies.com<mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Co-chair

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

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 07:39:37 UTC

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