Re: joining a working group

We at Google continue to believe that WebApps would be a good place for
putting this work on the standards track for the reasons stated here. [1]

Some other existing W3C WGs may also be a good fit. I note that our CG
currently consists of a large number of speech experts, but only a few with
broad web API expertise. Joining a group with more web API expertise
could provide valuable, balanced guidance and feedback.

/Glen Shires

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0235.html

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> I explicitly object HTML WG.
>
>
> My preferences would be
> 1. WebApps WG
> 2. New Group
> 3. (WhatWG)
> 4. DAP WG
> 5. Multimodal WG
>
>
> (Hard to see this stuff in Voice Browser WG, but don't object it.)
>
>
>
> -Olli
>
>
>
> On 08/08/2012 09:08 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>
>> So far, it seems that several  people think that WebApps we be a good
>> place for us.  However, my understanding is that when we considered that
>> group
>> before, WebApps did not want to take on the work.  Can we find out if
>> that’s still the case?   If WebApps is not a possibility, we should start
>> the
>> discussion of alternatives.
>>
>> In that spirit, here is a ranked list of Genesys’ preferences (excluding
>> WebApps for the moment).  If other people would send around similar lists,
>> we
>> can start to work on a ranked set of alternatives.  In addition to the
>> groups that your organization prefers, feel free to list the groups that
>> your
>> organization would _/not/_ want to participate in.  I think that we
>> should aim for broad participation, so we may be better off with a group
>> that
>>
>> everyone grudgingly accepts, rather than one that some people are quite
>> enthusiastic about but that others refuse to join.
>>
>> 1. Multimodal group
>>
>> 2.Voice Browser Group
>>
>> 3.New Group
>>
>> 4.HTML
>>
>> 5.Any other existing group
>>
>> -Jim Barnett
>>
>> -P.S.  In case you’re interested in the logic of the ranking:    I’m
>> familiar with the multimodal and voice  browser groups and think that
>> they’re
>>
>> both in a position to make a prompt decision and take on the new work
>> quickly. They would be the fastest way to get on a standards track.
>> Starting a
>> new group would take more time, but it would give us a maximally narrow
>> charter, which might increase participation.  The HTML group might also make
>> sense but it’s a huge operation and I’m afraid we could get lost in it.
>>  I don’t know enough about other groups to have an opinion, but am certainly
>> willing to consider them.
>>
>>
>
>