[minutes] 8 December 2011

Group,

The minutes from yesterday's call are available at http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-htmlspeech-minutes.html

For convenience, a text version is embedded below.

Thanks to Matt Womer for taking the minutes.

-- dan

**********************************************************************************
              HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference

08 Dec 2011

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Dec/0005.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-htmlspeech-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Matt_Womer, Michael_Bodell, Dan_Burnett, Avery_Bishop,
          Charles_Hemphill, Glen_Shires, Satish_Sampath, Debbie_Dahl

   Regrets
          Olli_Pettay, Bjorn_Bringert

   Chair
          Michael_Bodell

   Scribe
          Dan_Burnett, matt

Contents

     * [4]Topics
     * [5]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <mbodell>
   [6]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-201112
   06/

      [6] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-20111206/

   That link is for the final report

   Michael: congrats everyone, XG is officially done.
   ... last week discussed next steps, there were some differing
   opinions

   burn: To summarize what's going on. This call is for a last minute
   sanity check. The final report wasn't done yet, Michael was on
   vacation. So, the report is done, Michael is here. Now the question
   is what do we need to talk about?

   mbodell: There's agreement within the group that at least part of
   the work relating to the Web API JavaScript and markup bindings
   should be at W3C. There's disagreement about where within W3C.

   burn: There is some discussion about where the protocol work should
   live too.

   mbodell: The leading contenders are WebApps or a new WG.

   burn: Satish, have you had any more discussion with the WebApps
   chairs?

   Satish: I got positive feedback about it. They are happy to have us
   post the report to their list and discuss it.
   ... Now that we have the final report we should post it there.

   mbodell: The issue with WebApps is whether all of the folks will
   waive IP on about this.

   burn: There will be IP discussions within WebApp just as in a new
   group.

   Satish: We will all be there, whether it's WebApps or a separate
   group.

   burn: I would be careful saying "we" there.
   ... There was moderate agreement that it was clear that they could
   join either a new group or WebApps if they weren't already in
   WebApps.

   Satish: Many are in WebApps and those that aren't can join.

   mbodell: No matter which path is taken, or even if both are taken
   for a time, there will be W3C management and AC review too.
   ... There will be scrutiny over this stuff.
   ... If there are people in WebApps who have trouble releasing IP on
   this, they may want a new group. Or people inside WebApps thinking
   it should be outside the group or in will start arguing.

   burn: mbodell and I have written a draft charter that we'd like
   circulating within W3C.
   ... W3C is going to be involved in where this work lives, one way or
   another.
   ... Charter proposals don't guarantee new groups, but discussions.
   ... One thing you should be careful or sensitive about with whatever
   you say about WebApps -- we should say "here's a link to the XG
   report, is this work we could taken on here?", because one of the
   last things most groups want is to take on discussions that could
   have IP issues around it start happening in a WG without clear
   indication that it's happening.

   Satish: It might be useful if you could make the post in WebApps if
   that is ok.

   burn: It'd be appropriate for the chairs to email their list about
   the report saying there is discussion about where it should live.
   Either case they should take a look at it because of the expertise
   in the group.
   ... As chair, I'm uncomfortable recommending that it happen there,
   and as Voxeo, I'm even more uncomfortable with it there.

   mbodell: There could be a generic email that you, I or someone else
   could send with the URI in it. HTML, WebApps, maybe Audio. Satish or
   someone could reply to it within the WebApps WG.

   Satish: If you think it's more appropriate we could ask it as a
   separate question as well, something like that?

   burn: Yes, something like that. I've got to join WebApps myself. Are
   unsolicited posts allowed to the list from non-members?

   Satish: I think it's possible yes.

   burn: It's actually not appropriate for me to go join each of the
   groups, so I'll post to the public list.
   ... The entire AC should have seen the announcement. It's
   appropriate for me to now talk to individual groups.
   ... I'll mail the same email to each list. I'll say at the bottom
   which groups have received it.
   ... I'll mail WebApps, HTML, VBWG, MMI, Audio, DAP (for capture),

   Satish: Isn't DAP about non browser runtimes?

   burn: With WebRTC we are dealing with DAP on media.

   mbodell: This isn't a suggestion that these groups are being asked
   to continue work on this. It's just to inform them.

   ddahl: Accessibility?

   burn: In this email, I don't have a clear recommendation for where
   feedback should go. The member list still exists, the public list is
   closed but could reopen.

   mbodell: I think we should say that this is a doc you might be
   interested in reading, and say that the work will get picked up
   somewhere.

   glen: Does it make sense to have our list open until we have a home?

   Satish: Does it make sense that we have a place to inform them about
   where the work goes?

   burn: Actually, the member list is closed, the public list is open.
   ... We should make clear on the public list that there may be IP
   discussions going on about where the work should live. I'd like the
   public list to just be a place holder for feedback.
   ... It's a great place for a future group to store comments.
   ... I think we can use the public list that way with appropriate
   caveats.
   ... The phone bridge slot is still here, but we're not supposed to
   be doing work here.

Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 14:32:29 UTC