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

RE: New Charter

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:44:10 +0000
To: "Raj (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
CC: "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>, "ij@w3.org" <ij@w3.org>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, Satish S <satish@google.com>, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "ph@w3.org" <ph@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A4A3C34@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
I agree that it's too early for talk of a split.  Let's see if we can find common ground.

I've read two arguments AGAINST the formation of a new WG:
	Overhead [1]  - In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we cut the proposed schedule in half.  This takes us down to a single F2F per year and bimonthly teleconferences.  Satish, would that address your concern?
	Prioritizing implementation [1] [2] [3] - This is an argument I'd like to better understand.  As I see it: A) Google believes that the JavaScript Speech API is already stable enough for implementers, [2], and B) The new WG charter mentions continuing on that same work [4].  So what's to stop implementers from taking the existing API and providing feedback via the new WG?  Glen and Satish, how do you suggest I adjust the charter to make that more explicit?

On the flip side, arguments in favor of a new WG are many.  Among these are: 1) Standards track document, 2) Greater visibility, 3) Staff support, 4) Facility resources, and 4) Keeping promises made to this CG [5]. 

Thank you

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0081.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0087.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0090.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0031.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0139.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raj (Openstream) [mailto:raj@openstream.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:47 PM
> To: Jerry Carter; Matt Womer
> Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org; ij@w3.org; Young, Milan; Glen Shires; Satish S;
> Jim Barnett
> Subject: Re: New Charter
> 
> 
> Very well said..I agree with Jerry that there is nothing stopping others
> interested in participating in a WG activity continuing..and that there could be
> differences in the processes various standards bodies.
> 
> Given, our initial intent by subscribing  to the W3C processes & track, and how
> rapidly we have been able to get quality feed-back and suggestions from
> Satish et. al at Google and Olli et.al at Mozilla and Milan et. al at Nuance and
> numerous other experts like Jerry, Jim and Dahl, it has been Openstream's
> hope and desire that this effort does not get forked at  this time.
> 
> And for the same right reasons that Jerry mentions that it would challenge any
> existing spec or proposal and with collective effort and resources allocated, we
> could perhaps avert the unnecessary forking at this stage.
> 
> As a multimodal platform vendor we would like a broader endorsement of
> such effort and hence desire a more inclusive approach.
> 
> --Raj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:02:43 -0400
>   Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org> wrote:
> >
> > Standards move forward in different ways.  Just as the W3C
> >Recommendation process differs from the IETF RFCs, so too does the CG
> >work follow a different path from Recommendations.  The most important
> >criteria in my mind is establishing a critical mass of browser
> >companies and application developers.  The details of the process may
> >influence mindshare but are of far lesser import than the ideas that
> >comprise the standard and the timing in the marketplace.
> >
> > Glen and Satish have each advanced an opinion that the current
> >document is sufficiently advanced to merit implementation and author
> >feedback.  This is an opinion, but certainly an informed one.  Should
> >Google be joined by one or more browser vendors, or perhaps even if
> >not, there is an opportunity for rapid progress to be made.  I fully
> >endorse their efforts to field test the Javascript Speech API and will
> >offer my assistance where appropriate.  The lessons from these efforts
> >will undoubtedly inform future work and further the prospects of a
> >fully speech-enabled web.
> >
> > That stated, I see no reason that interested parties should not
> >proceed with plans for a W3C Working Group.  While Satish has indicated
> >that Google will not participate at this time, my reading of Milan's,
> >Raj's, and Jim's emails suggests that there are at least three
> >companies interested in following that path.  There may even be an
> >opportunity to re-engage with existing working groups such as the
> >Multimodal Interaction Activity [1].  No doubt the members of a W3C
> >Working Group focused on speech APIs will want to track efforts at
> >Google, AT&T, Apple, and elsewhere as they develop a W3C
> Recommendation
> >for a speech API.  I am certain that the initiative would also
> >challenge and improve existing W3C Recommendation track documents such
> >as EMMA and the recently published Multimodal Architecture and
> >Interfaces Recommendation.  Surely this is a good thing.
> >
> > I see no deep conflict here.  Different opinions and complementary
> >efforts, sure, but a a richer set of concepts and a better eventual
> >specification as a result.
> >
> > -=- Jerry
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/Group
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Matt Womer wrote:
> >
> >> Just to be clear what we have is not what W3C considers a spec. CG
> >>work does not directly result in W3C Recommendations and as such are
> >>not covered under the IPR agreement covering Recommendations. I find
> >>it troubling that at this stage we, having exhausted other WG options
> >>and not creating a new WG, are going to let this "spec" exist as is
> >>without finishing the process. This seems in conflict with what I
> >>thought this group wanted.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >> On Sep 18, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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-169
> >>>6/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.ht
> >>>ml
> >>>
> >>> [2]
> >>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0026.ht
> >>>ml
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.ht
> >>>ml
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> 
> --
> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:
> THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE
> TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF
> YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
> DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE
> NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE
> DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR
> YOUR COOPERATION.
> Reply to : legal@openstream.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 05:44:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:28 UTC