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

RE: New Charter

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:46:39 +0000
To: "Raj (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, Satish S <satish@google.com>
CC: "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>, "ij@w3.org" <ij@w3.org>, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "ph@w3.org" <ph@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A4A6911@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
Glen and Satish,

You've listed two objections to continuing upon our agreed path to a standards track document.  I'd like to reiterate that I'm open to accommodating your needs on both topics (see below).

Let's please at least have that dialog.

Regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:44 PM
> To: Raj (Openstream); Jerry Carter; Matt Womer
> Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org; ij@w3.org; Glen Shires; Satish S; Jim Barnett;
> ph@w3.org
> Subject: RE: New Charter
> 
> 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-1
> > >>>69
> > >>>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, 26 September 2012 22:47:10 UTC

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