Re: Merging with a WG

CORRECTION.  'now' -> 'not'.  Critical difference.

On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Jerry Carter wrote:

> While WebApps seems the best match, I would now rule out the Device APIs group [1].
> 
> -=- Jerry
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/
> 
> On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Glen Sires wrote:
>> Yes, some WebApps members also mentioned IP issues, and I do not have any information that this concern has changed.  However, IP issues can often be addressed by having a very well-defined scope.  This is why I expect more success this time with the publishing our first draft of the spec (and thus also have an inherently well-defined scope).
>>  
>> But we should also explore other options as well, so nominations for other existing W3C WGs, as well as potentially forming a new WG, should be considered. Also, Jim's comments are pertinent here. [1]
>> /Glen Shires
>>  
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0002.html
>>  
>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
>> Glen, beyond the spec and scope WebApps members also mentioned IP issues the last time this was brought up. Do you have any information that this concern has changed since then or do you plan to contact WebApps again prior to our proposal being ready?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Satish
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
>> 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
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>