RE: joining a working group

I think that WebApps would be very reasonable. My only concern is making
sure that we've addressed the issues that they had the first time we tried
to join, otherwise we'll get the same response we had from the earlier
discussion.

 

From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 4:28 PM
To: Young, Milan; Glen Shires; olli@pettay.fi
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: joining a working group

 

Glen,

It's clear that WebApps is the first choice (with new group or multimodal as
second choice).  Will you approach them, or would you like someone else to?

 

-          Jim

 

From: Young, Milan [mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 4:26 PM
To: Glen Shires; olli@pettay.fi
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: joining a working group

 

Nuance supports WebApps as long as the merge is achieved by TPAC.  If no
progress has been made by the middle of September, then our vote will fall
back on MultiModal.  I will be happy to draft both of the new charters
should I receive approval from this group.

 

Thanks

 

 

From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:28 AM
To: olli@pettay.fi
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: 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.