W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-speech-api@w3.org > August 2012

Re: joining a working group

From: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:01:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEE5bcj0fM3Rx8BRiR824N16r_e3e+6JG9UCd3R5CavJaGCcwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Yes, I'll work with Hans to do capture our in-progress discussions as
editor notes.

However, let's NOT halt new discussion, instead let's
continue discussions in parallel.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  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>
> 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]
> *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
> thatís 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 Genesysí 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 youíre interested in the logic of the ranking:    Iím
> familiar with the multimodal and voice  browser groups and think that
> theyíre****
>
>
> 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 itís a huge operation and Iím afraid we could get lost in it.  I
> donít know enough about other groups to have an opinion, but am certainly
> willing to consider them.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 15:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:27:25 UTC