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

RE: Co-chair

From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:57:59 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD8106581EA3@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
To: "Satish S" <satish@google.com>, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "Glen Shires" <gshires@google.com>, <jerry@jerrycarter.org>, <ij@w3.org>, <schepers@w3.org>, <olli@pettay.fi>, <bringert@google.com>, <raj@openstream.com>, <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, <public-speech-api@w3.org>

I don't think that there are _any_ requirements for going to a WG, other
than people being willing to sign up for it.  You're right that test
suites are required only rather late in the WG process.  


-          Jim


From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:24 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Glen Shires; Jim Barnett; jerry@jerrycarter.org; ij@w3.org;
schepers@w3.org; olli@pettay.fi; bringert@google.com;
raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com;
Subject: Re: Co-chair


Once the speech API spec gets adopted by a WG I think ongoing work can
happen there and this CG's purpose would be fulfilled. So I would think
subsequent revisions happen in the WG.


Re: TPAC, that gives us about 4 months from now and looks like
sufficient time to cover major topics including TTS.


Re: test suites, that is a requirement when the spec goes to a Candidate
Recommendation and I believe we can take the spec to a WG before the
test suite is ready. Glen, please correct me if I'm wrong.


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>




From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:13 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Jim Barnett; jerry@jerrycarter.org; ij@w3.org; schepers@w3.org;
olli@pettay.fi; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com;
raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com;
Subject: Re: Co-chair


Yes, I believe we need to complete the initial version of this spec as a
CG before formally proposing to a WG that it be put on a standards
track.  By initial version, I mean a version that supports the majority
of use cases, but it also implies that there will be subsequent versions
that add additional features.  By keeping the initial version simple,
and avoiding bloat, we make it easier for WG to take on the work, and
for multiple browser vendors to implement. 


[Milan] Could you please clarify whether work on those subsequent
revisions would happen in this CG vs a WG?



This is consistent with "The goal and scope of this Community
Group...For this initial specification, we believe that a simplified
subset API will accelerate implementation, interoperability testing,
standardization and ultimately developer adoption." [1] [2]


Based on our substantial progress so far and taking into account the
pending work (TTS, test suites, pending topics, finer aspects of the API
that may come up) I estimate the initial version of this spec will be
completed by end of the year. If we can resolve key topics quickly, the
spec can be ready sooner.


[Milan] My preference is that we have a draft worthy of review by the
next TPAC.  I believe this will help inform our decision on joining an
existing WG or creating our own.


In order to do that, we'll need a better gauge on the topics ahead.
Would you be available to sketch out our timeline?  Of particular
concern to me is your mention of "test suites".  That seems like a topic
that could drag on for quite some time.  Do you view this as a
prerequisite for inclusion into a WG?


/ Milan






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



On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@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;
Cc: olli@pettay.fi; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com;
raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com;
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> 
To: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>; Jerry Carter
<jerry@jerrycarter.org>; Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> (ij@w3.org) <ij@w3.org>;
Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org) <schepers@w3.org> 
Cc: olli@pettay.fi <olli@pettay.fi>; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com
<bringert@google.com>; satish@google.com <satish@google.com>;
raj@openstream.com <raj@openstream.com>;
<dahl@conversational-technologies.com>; 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.











From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:02 AM
To: Jerry Carter
Cc: Young, Milan; 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


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 Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:27 UTC