RE: joining a working group

Both the title and charter of the Multimodal Interaction WG group seems to be a perfect home for this effort.  Yes, it lacks significant participation from major browser vendors, but so does the newly proposed group ;)

In the course of Jim's mailing list poll [1], nobody raised any objections to joining MMI and, after WebApps, it was the second most requested destination.  Are there any objections that this community would care to raise now?

Thanks

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0016.html]



From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:48 PM
To: Deborah Dahl; Glen Shires
Cc: Gerardo Capiel; Matt Womer; Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: RE: joining a working group

Given that Apple objects to adding this work to WebApps,  I think that it's very unlikely that they will participate in a separate group (either that, or they fail a logical consistency test).


-          Jim

From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]<mailto:[mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 3:43 PM
To: Jim Barnett; 'Glen Shires'
Cc: 'Gerardo Capiel'; 'Matt Womer'; 'Young, Milan'; olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: RE: joining a working group

It's probably too much to hope for all browser companies and all speech companies to participate, especially since there are plenty of speech companies that don't even belong to the W3C. But I agree that we can probably maximize participation by keeping the scope narrow in a new group.

From: Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:45 PM
To: Glen Shires
Cc: Gerardo Capiel; Matt Womer; Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: 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]<mailto:[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<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gshires@google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:16 PM
To: Gerardo Capiel; Matt Womer; Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:415-577-3484>
http://about.me/gerardo

On Aug 23, 2012, at 9:52 AM, "Matt Womer" <mdw@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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@<mailto:gshires@>google.com<http://google.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:33 PM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto: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<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..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.