Re: joining a working group

A couple weeks ago I emailed WebApps chairs Art and Chaals.  I received a
response from Chaals citing IPR concerns similar to Matt's comments.

At this point I believe there would be similar IPR complications in joining
any other existing WG.  Just as with our CG, a new WG would allow for the
narrowest scope for IPR considerations, and thus allow companies to join
the CG or new WG without committing to IPR for additional specifications.

Our immediate course of action continues to be to complete a stable draft
of this spec, which can be then used to more precisely define the
scope. Completing this draft is currently in high-gear and receiving much
discussion on this mailing list. I expect this draft to be completed by the
end of September.

To Gerardo's question: I do not know if splitting the speech recognition
and speech synthesis portions would minimize IPR concerns, however I
suspect it would have little effect because most major companies that have
an interest in one of these technologies, seem to have an interest in both
technologies. I would prefer to avoid splitting these because of the
efficiency and consistency obtained by defining speech recognition and
speech synthesis portions together.

/Glen Shires

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>wrote:

>  Would splitting the speech recognition and speech synthesis portions of
> the spec minimize IPR concerns based on the interested and participating
> parties?
>
> Gerardo Capiel
> VP of Engineering, Benetech
> cell: 415-577-3484
> http://about.me/gerardo
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:52 AM, "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org> wrote:
>
>   Hi Milan, Glen,
>
>  I went through the history of you asking to give the spec to  WebApps
> last year, and I came upon this email:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0460.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0460..html>
>
>  The beginning is a quote from David Singer from Apple saying IPR is a
> reason to not merge with WebApps.  The reply below from Art, indicated that
> there were others who gave team-confidential feedback on exactly the same
> grounds.  Knowing this then, they didn't add the proposal.  I do not
> believe the situation has changed since then, or that it will.  I think it
> would be more fruitful to explore other options at this point.
>
>  -M
>
>
>   On Aug 22, 2012, at 3:52 PM, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> wrote:
>
>   Hello Glen,****
>
>  It’s been a couple weeks now since you mentioned the conversation with
> Arthur Barstow.  Any news to report?****
>
>  Thank you****
>
>
>  *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<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<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.****
>
>   ****
>   ****
>
>
>