RE: Co-chair

If Google decides when consensus is reached, and not reaching consensus means that we get whatever Google wants, then yes this is a dictatorship.  As Tocqueville observed, it can be a good thing, but with much power comes much responsibility.

That observation*is* constructive if it helps us reach a new understanding about the structure of this group.  If you want us to follow, then you will need to be very careful in how you lead.  Omitting agreed upon changes is not an example of good leadership.


From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:15 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Satish S; Ian Jacobs; Glen Shires; Jerry Carter; Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org); olli@pettay.fi; Jim Barnett; raj@openstream.com (Openstream); dahl@conversational-technologies.com Dahl; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: Co-chair

Is calling the group a "dictatorship" really constructive? What dictatorial decisions have you observed?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote:
Airing grievances in a constructive fashion must not be considered breaking decorum.  The truth is that the several of us are very uncomfortable with what amounts to a Google dictatorship.  Convincing us that is it a benevolent dictatorship is a good portion of your leadership responsibility.

But to the topic at hand, Hans has apologized, I accepted his apology, and I’m ready to move on.

Thanks


From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:15 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Ian Jacobs; Glen Shires; Jerry Carter; Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org<mailto:schepers@w3.org>); olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com<mailto:bringert@google.com>; raj@openstream.com<mailto:raj@openstream.com> (Openstream); dahl@conversational-technologies.com<mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com> Dahl; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Co-chair

As suggested earlier lets maintain decorum in the discussions and work constructively instead of pointing fingers at each other.

Milan, I don't know the reason why the use cases haven't been added yet but I see no one else has chimed in the EMMA thread about the use cases. If you can propose wording for the use cases and that'll push it forward.

Cheers
Satish
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote:
Glen,

Anyone who was following [1] knew that giving up those attributes was a major concession, and attached to that concession was the request that use cases be documented [6].  It was wrong for the Google editor to quickly add the text they were interested while not even acknowledging the content of the arrangement.  What we need is a commitment that this class of editing will not take place in the future.  A pat on the back for a 14 minute turnaround time is exactly the wrong response.

[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0057.html




-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:58 PM
To: Glen Shires; Young, Milan
Cc: Jerry Carter; Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org<mailto:schepers@w3.org>); 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> (Openstream); dahl@conversational-technologies.com<mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com> Dahl; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Co-chair
[Top-posting]

Glen and Milan,

Thank you very much for taking a close look at the concerns and working as a group toward consensus decisions and shared expectations!

Ian


On 13 Jun 2012, at 9:26 PM, Glen Shires wrote:

> Milan,
> Thank you for bringing up each of these points, I'm sorry if there has been a misunderstanding...
>
> Your first link [1] quotes you as saying "I'm also happy with the new text" and is in direct reply to the precise version of the text that was put into the draft [2].  Also, in [1] you additionally propose that "we add a link to an appendix or something for the use cases".
>
> It seems to me that Hans, as editor, acted appropriately here. He promptly added to the spec the text that we all had reached consensus on. He did not add the use cases in a new appendix, something which you had first proposed 14 minutes prior, and which others clearly had not had time to review.
>
> I do apologize for not yet responding to the question [3] that you had posed yesterday. In answer: I suggest that you propose specific wording for these use cases that is suitable for inclusion in the appendix, so that others in the CG can review and respond. (The use of first-person [1] is not typical of wording in W3C specifications.)  Once others review and presuming consensus is reached, it will be added to the spec. This is a draft spec. We are iteratively editing and adding portions as we reach consensus on them.
>
> Per your escalation of issues to W3C Staff, Ian Jacobs called me today, and I understand he also called you, so that he could better understand the issues.  As part of the call to me, he recommended that we add the Copyright and Boilerplate text to the spec, and that we formally post, in the Reports - Draft section of our CG home page, the URL of the latest in-progress draft so that any interested parties can easily find it.  I promptly did as he requested.  This process auto-generates and sends the email [4], including the subject line that reads "First Draft of Speech JavaScript API published...".  This is something that should probably been done when we first formed this CG, but as Ian admits, the process is not formal or well-documented.
>
> There is nothing special about this version of the draft spec, no momentous point in the timeline, no call for review. It is a simply the in-progress draft that we continue iteratively editing as we reach consensus on additional items. The momentous point in time will be when we post in the Reports a Final Specification, and I fully intend to provide this group advanced notification and opportunity for review and consensus.
>
> Regarding [5], we agree that we are converging on a solution to this very complex issue of using confidence values in a recognizer independent manner. (A problem that the speech industry has struggled with for many years.) I think we both believe we are very close to resolution. I'll respond more specifically in that thread.
>
> Milan, I very much appreciate you bringing up each of these specific concerns, and if I have not fully addressed any of them, please let me know. And please let me know of any other specific concerns as soon as they arise.
>
> Thanks
> Glen Shires
>
> (Same references from your email)
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0060.htm

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

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

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

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

> l
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0060.htm

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

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

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

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

> l
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com<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
>
>
>
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org<mailto:ij@w3.org>)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/

Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447<tel:%2B1%20718%20260%209447>




--
Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
Registered in England Number: 3977902