Re: Co-chair

Milan,
Thank you for bringing up each of these points, I'm sorry if there has been
a misunderstanding...

Your first link [1] quotes you as saying "I'm also happy with the new text"
and is in direct reply to the precise version of the text that was put into
the draft [2].  Also, in [1] you additionally propose that "we add a link
to an appendix or something for the use cases".

It seems to me that Hans, as editor, acted appropriately here. He promptly
added to the spec the text that we all had reached consensus on. He did not
add the use cases in a new appendix, something which you had first proposed
14 minutes prior, and which others clearly had not had time to review.

I do apologize for not yet responding to the question [3] that you had
posed yesterday. In answer: I suggest that you propose specific wording for
these use cases that is suitable for inclusion in the appendix, so that
others in the CG can review and respond. (The use of first-person [1] is
not typical of wording in W3C specifications.)  Once others review and
presuming consensus is reached, it will be added to the spec. This is a
draft spec. We are iteratively editing and adding portions as we reach
consensus on them.

Per your escalation of issues to W3C Staff, Ian Jacobs called me today, and
I understand he also called you, so that he could better understand the
issues.  As part of the call to me, he recommended that we add the
Copyright and Boilerplate text to the spec, and that we formally post, in
the Reports - Draft section of our CG home page, the URL of the latest
in-progress draft so that any interested parties can easily find it.  I
promptly did as he requested.  This process auto-generates and sends the
email [4], including the subject line that reads "First Draft of Speech
JavaScript API published...".  This is something that should probably been
done when we first formed this CG, but as Ian admits, the process is not
formal or well-documented.

There is nothing special about this version of the draft spec,
no momentous point in the timeline, no call for review. It is a simply the
in-progress draft that we continue iteratively editing as we reach
consensus on additional items. The momentous point in time will be when we
post in the Reports a Final Specification, and I fully intend to provide
this group advanced notification and opportunity for review and consensus.

Regarding [5], we agree that we are converging on a solution to this very
complex issue of using confidence values in a recognizer independent
manner. (A problem that the speech industry has struggled with for many
years.) I think we both believe we are very close to resolution. I'll
respond more specifically in that thread.

Milan, I very much appreciate you bringing up each of these specific
concerns, and if I have not fully addressed any of them, please let me
know. And please let me know of any other specific concerns as soon as they
arise.

Thanks
Glen Shires

(Same references from your email)
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0060.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0061.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0062.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0076.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0010.html



On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  Taking a step back, we’re in a situation where a Google representative
> decides when consensus is reached, and if we lack consensus we default to
> whatever Google wanted earlier.  Do the folks in this community feel this
> is a path to building a spec that has the broad-based support needed to
> attract missing browser and speech vendors?****
>
> ** **
>
> I’d also like to call out an recent instance where consensus was reached,
> but the agreed changes did not make their way into the spec.  This happened
> near the end of the EMMA thread where Satish, Deborah, and I finally agreed
> to drop the requirement for EMMA attributes in exchange for adding use
> cases [1].  But when the changes were pushed through, they were missing the
> compromise text [2].  And my notification to this problem didn’t generate
> any response from the chair or editors [3].  This is especially worrisome
> given that we just published our first draft (sans compromise text) without
> any advanced notification, vote, or opportunity for review [4].  Perhaps
> this is simply a case of broken timeline expectations, but given that my
> requests have fallen off the proverbial radar several times before (most
> recently [5]), it feels like a bias is at play.****
>
> ** **
>
> I would like to hear from others in the community on this topic.  I’m
> particularly interested to know thoughts around the formation of an
> official WG where we can produce a standards-track specification.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0060.html***
> *
>
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0061.html***
> *
>
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0062.html***
> *
>
> [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0076.html***
> *
>
> [5]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0010.html***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2012 8:02 AM
> *To:* Jerry Carter
> *Cc:* Young, Milan; olli@pettay.fi; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com;
> satish@google.com; raj@openstream.com;
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com; public-speech-api@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Co-chair****
>
> ** **
>
> Changes to the spec and to the structure of this CG are decided by rough
> consensus. There is no clear consensus on the co-chair proposal, so there
> will be no changes in the structure of this CG at this time.****
>
> ** **
>
> Glen Shires****
>
> ** **
>