RE: Merging with a WG

We should review the earlier email traffic with WebApps and make sure we can
address their concerns before reopening the discussion with them. 

 

From: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 9:50 PM
To: Jim Barnett; Glen Shires
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: Merging with a WG

 

I would also support a move to WebApps.

 

The main questions for me relate to logistics.  I'm assuming that Glen would
put together the charter proposal, correct?  What would be the timeline?

 

 

From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:02 PM
To: Glen Shires; Young, Milan
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: Merging with a WG

 

I don't have any particular preference,  However I would note that an
independent working group will have the narrowest charter, and therefore the
fewest IP commitments.  Breadth of IP commitments may be an issue for some
potential participants.  It's not an issue for Genesys and I think that we
will join no matter where it ends up, but I would like to see the broadest
participation possible.  

 

-          Jim 

 

From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:57 PM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: Merging with a WG

 

Yes, I'd like to hear everyone's nominations for potential W3C WGs.

 

I nominate WebApps. Prior to forming this CG we explored adding it to the
charter of WebApps, but that was hindered by a lack of specific spec/scope.
I expect more success this time because we'll be approaching them after
publishing our first draft of the spec (and thus also have an inherently
well-defined scope). 

 

/Glen Shires

 

 

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
wrote:

Although traffic on this list has lately been sparse, I believe this
community has generally made good progress cleaning up the XG report into
something that will be palatable to browser vendors.  I trust that once
northern hemisphere summer projects and vacations draw to a close, we will
resume discussions and publish our first draft in time for TPAC.

 

I suggest that we use this break to begin planning our transition into a
formal Working Group.  My goal would be to have the structure in place by
TPAC so that would could kickoff meaningful discussions F2F.  Do other folks
in this community support that goal?

 

A significant part of merging into a WG is finding the right home.  Several
of us prefer the idea of merging with an existing group while some have
suggested a new group.  I suggest we start that decision by reaching out to
the existing groups to see if the charters are mutually compatible.  If we
can find a compatible home, then we put it as a vote to this group whether
to join.  If we cannot find a compatible group by TPAC, then we create our
own.  Does this sound like an acceptable proposal?

 

Milan