Re: New Charter

Milan,
The charter of this CG is stated on the home page for this CG, and has not
changed since the beginning of this CG.
http://www.w3.org/community/speech-api/

The goal and scope of this Community Group is to produce a JavaScript
Speech API that supports the majority of use-cases in the the Speech
Incubator Group's Final Report [1], but is a simplified subset API, such as
this proposal [2]. For this initial specification, we believe that a
simplified subset API will accelerate implementation, interoperability
testing, standardization and ultimately developer adoption. This JavaScript
Speech API will enable web developers to incorporate scripts into their web
pages that can generate text-to-speech output and can use speech
recognition as an input for forms, continuous dictation and control.
Specification of HTML markup and a network speech protocol are out-of-scope
of this Community Group.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech/
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-1696/speechapi.html



This is indeed a change of my opinion of what we should be doing at this
point. However, if statements that I made in that prior email response were
interpreted by you as re-defining the group's charter, then I apologize for
the confusion. The only reference to the word "charter" that I see in that
entire thread is in reference to drafting a new charter for the potential
new WG.

With regard to the three points you made below...

1. The in-progress discussions have been summarized as editor notes in the
current spec: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html
We believe we have wrapped-up the work to the extent that compatible
implementations by browser vendors are possible.

2. Test Suites are nice to have, but aren't blocking us from moving forward.

3. As stated previously: Google will not join a new WG at this time. We
believe this is the best course of action right now for the spec for the
reasons stated earlier in this thread.


On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:

> Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the charter was defined when the CG
> was formed and is the one mentioned in
> http://www.w3.org/community/speech-api/. That doesn't mention anything
> about transitioning to a WG so it is clearly not part of the charter.
>
> We did discuss about it in the CG earlier and Google's current position is
> after careful consideration of the great progress made in the CG the timing
> is right to focus on implementation and iterate based on web developer
> feedback. I do see us continuing to improve the spec based on  feedback we
> receive once there are UA implementations of the proposed API.
>
> Our position is not inconsistent with the charter you proposed, but we
> wanted to inform in context of the new charter discussion that we won't be
> joining a new WG at this time.
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:
>
>>  Glen, I agree with what you have written below, but fail to see how
>> this is inconsistent with the new charter.  If there is an inconsistency,
>> please let me know so I can update the proposal.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I’m also still awaiting your response to each of the three points I made
>> below.  Being that your hold the position of chair, and given the context
>> of the statements, the promises you made were essentially interpreted as
>> being part of the groups charter.  (In fact I believe you are aware that
>> many of us have remained active in this group precisely because of those
>> promises.)  It would be a violation of the CG mission for this group to
>> proceed otherwise without explicit consent from the members.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Thank you****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:33 PM
>> *To:* Young, Milan
>> *Cc:* Satish S; public-speech-api@w3.org; Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> (
>> ij@w3.org)
>> *Subject:* Re: New Charter****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> We at Google believe the spec is ready to be implemented by browser
>> vendors in a compatible way. The few remaining open issues are not blocking
>> issues, and getting early feedback from web authors will provide great
>> insight in charting the course for future work on the spec. We believe that
>> it's most important right now for browser vendors to focus on
>> implementation, rather than attempting to resolve the few remaining issues
>> without feedback from web developers building real-world JavaScript
>> applications using it.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> /Glen Shires****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> We at Google are pleased with the current progress in this CG of the
>> Speech JavaScript API Specification, and believe that it is nearing
>> completion, at least an initial version that can be implemented compatibly
>> across multiple browsers.  We believe it provides a rich toolset for web
>> authors, and that getting early feedback from web authors is valuable. As
>> such, we believe the major task ahead is to complete implementations and
>> test suites.****
>>
>> *[Milan] *We’ve had a similar discussion on this topic before, and that
>> thread was brought to a close with a statement from our chair Glen [1].  He
>> made three points in that mail that I’d like to review:****
>>
>> 1)      We were planning to wrap up work before TPAC.  This statement
>> was in turn followed up by another email from Glen in which he stated that
>> he and Hans would work to summarize in-progress discussions as editor notes
>> [2].  That second statement was made in the context of prioritizing
>> wrapping up our work so that we would have time to transition into a WG
>> within the agreed TPAC timeframe.  This is in contrast to the model where
>> we would push out the date in hopes of achieving stability.****
>>
>> 2)      Test suites are nice to have, but they would not blocking
>> formation of a WG.****
>>
>> 3)      Once the Speech API is adopted by a WG, we can conclude this
>> CG.  I’d like to point out that the Speech JavaScript API is an explicit
>> part of the new WG charter.****
>>
>> * *****
>>
>> In short, your statement constitutes a major reversal of the premise of
>> this CG.  Please clarify.****
>>
>>
>>
>> We wish to continue as a CG to rapidly complete this work, rather than
>> take on the overhead of forming a new WG. We will not join a new WG at this
>> time.****
>>
>> *[Milan] *Yes, there is a bit of overhead to forming a WG, but most of
>> that has already been done for you.  As far as operating within a WG, I see
>> significant gains to what we can accomplish, and we’ll have a
>> standards-track document to show in the end.****
>>
>> Thanks****
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0139.html**
>> **
>>
>> [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0026.html**
>> **
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Satish****
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> I suggest we use the attached as the first draft for our new charter.
>> After gathering feedback from this group, I am planning to push the
>> document through the usual channels.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Note that I’ve also requested space at the upcoming TPAC, which I’m
>> hoping will serve as our first meeting (informal or otherwise).  We’re on
>> the waiting list for a room to free up (made the line August 7th).  I
>> believe Matt Wormer is trying something similar, so please respond to his
>> post [1] if you can make it.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Thanks****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0021.html**
>> **
>>
>>  ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>