RE: Co-chair

However,  I haven't seen any progress on Milan's third priority:

• Plan to merge our work into an official standards-track deliverable within the next year.

I consider this to be very important.  I would also like to see a more formal procedure for making decisions.  I think that adding Milan as a co-chair can help in both areas. 

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:05 AM
To: Satish S
Cc: Young, Milan; Raj (Openstream); Deborah Dahl; Glen Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: Co-chair

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
>> Support for EMMA (FPR-4) was the second-most demanded feature of such 
>> an API, yet this group has been haggling since inception on whether 
>> we need such a feature at all.  It would be one thing if the 
>> arguments were part of a grass roots movement across the industry, 
>> but they are not.  The opponents are almost unanimously aligned under 
>> the Google flag which holds both the chair and editor positions.  This doesn't feel like a community.
>
>
> Looking back at the mailing list archives, it is clear that most of 
> the questions about EMMA usage were raised by me and I am neither a 
> chair nor an editor. Adding more chairs to the CG isn't going to 
> change this. To their credit both Glen and Hans have been trying find 
> a common language among all the discussions.
>
> Also note that all of my proposals and questions come from my web 
> developer background and such perspectives are something the group 
> will get a lot when taking the API proposal to the standards track.
>
> What we clearly need is to get more web developers and UA vendors 
> participate, not more chairs or editors.

+1

--
Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 11:51:02 UTC