Re: Co-chair

My guess is that this will have to be a new group. (My understanding is that important potential participants object to the existing working groups.). I don't think that the W3C will object to the formation of a new group, and that will allow us to have the narrowest possible charter, which should minimize IPR concerns. 

Jim

________________________________

From: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> 
To: Jim Barnett 
Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>; Satish S <satish@google.com>; Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>; Raj (Openstream) <raj@openstream.com>; Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>; public-speech-api@w3.org <public-speech-api@w3.org> 
Sent: Tue Jun 12 11:40:08 2012
Subject: Re: Co-chair 


Yes, our plan has always been to merge our work into an official standards-track deliverable. Prior to forming this CG we explored several options, including adding it to the charter of WebApps, but that was hindered by a lack of specific spec/scope.

Now that we are getting close to completing the first draft of the spec, we should revisit putting the spec on the standards-track in WebApps and/or other W3C groups. Let me know your suggestions of potential other W3C groups. 

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> wrote:


 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