RE: joining a working group

Yes, the specification is critical in defining the scope, which is why I suggested that we prioritize publishing a stable spec [2].  Given that we are short on time, I suggest that we halt new discussion and simply capture our in progress discussions as editor notes.  This will allow us to both publish a spec that represents community consensus and also give potential WGs a way to evaluate scope.

Does this sound like a reasonable operating policy for the next couple weeks?

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0011.html


From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:33 PM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: olli@pettay.fi; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: joining a working group

WebApps chair Arthur Barstow outlined the process of adding a new deliverable to a WG's charter [1].  As such, "drafting the charter" for such a proposal is primarily in clearly defining the scope of the work, which in our case is primarily in referencing to the draft of the specification.  I have contacted him to discuss this further.

/Glen Shires

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0229.html

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:gshires@google.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 11:28 AM
To: olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>
Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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.