RE: joining a working group

Glenn,

Yes, that may well be the case, and we certainly get the narrowest
charter by starting a new group.

 

-          Jim

 

From: Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:39 PM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: Gerardo Capiel; Matt Womer; Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi;
public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: 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..htm
l> 

	 

	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..htm
l> 

	 

	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
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0235..htm
l> 

	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.