Re: joining a working group

I agree with Glen's point regarding broader expertise being useful for 
this work. While webapps becomes a prefernce for some and I don't 
necessarily object to it..

Openstream's preference will be:

1. Multimodal WG ( for reasons of familiarity & broader domain 
expertise that Glen and Jim mentioned)

2. New Group

3. Webapps

Explicitly object to DAP.

--Raj



On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:27:59 -0700
  Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

--
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, 8 August 2012 19:09:22 UTC