Re: joining a working group

Jim,
That's a good clarification. My primary concern is of type 2. I would like
all browser companies and all speech companies to participate, and I
believe there are some major companies "who don’t want to accept the IPR
restrictions from the _other_ work that an existing group is already doing".

/Glen Shires

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

> One question to consider is whether****
>
> **1)      **the IPR concerns are coming from within the group we are
> joining (i.e. they don’t want this added to our scope) ****
>
> **2)      **The IPR concerns are coming from potential participants in _*
> our*_ work who don’t want to accept the IPR restrictions from the _*other*_
> work that the group is already doing.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> As I understand it, with WebApps 1 is the case.  I’m not sure that would
> be the case if we joined the Multimodal Group  (we’d have to ask but the
> work certainly seems to fit within the scope of their current charter.)
> There still could be objections of type 2 to the Multimodal Group, of
> course.   However, I think it’s good to distinguish between ‘they don’t
> want us’ and ‘we don’t want them’.****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Jim****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
> *To:* Gerardo Capiel; Matt Womer; Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi;
> public-speech-api@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* 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.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>