Re: Co-chair

Yes, I believe we need to complete the initial version of this spec as a CG
before formally proposing to a WG that it be put on a standards track.  By
initial version, I mean a version that supports the majority of use cases,
but it also implies that there will be subsequent versions that add
additional features.  By keeping the initial version simple, and avoiding
bloat, we make it easier for WG to take on the work, and for multiple
browser vendors to implement.

This is consistent with "The goal and scope of this Community Group...For
this initial specification, we believe that a simplified subset API will
accelerate implementation, interoperability testing, standardization and
ultimately developer adoption." [1] [2]

Based on our substantial progress so far and taking into account the
pending work (TTS, test suites, pending topics, finer aspects of the API
that may come up) I estimate the initial version of this spec will be
completed by end of the year. If we can resolve key topics quickly, the
spec can be ready sooner.

Glen

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Apr/0000.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/speech-api/


On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  While I agree that we need to move this effort to a WG, we must be
> careful not to splinter.****
>
> ** **
>
> The truth is that this community has made progress cleaning up the scope
> of the XG report.  We also should keep in mind that a principle reason
> we’re in this CG instead of some of the more attractive WGs like WebApps is
> because we lack consensus.  Starting a new WG while the CG is still in
> progress will not impress anyone.****
>
> ** **
>
> Glen, I would like to know your vision and timeline for the transition.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:11 AM
> *To:* Young, Milan; gshires@google.com; jerry@jerrycarter.org; ij@w3.org;
> schepers@w3.org
> *Cc:* olli@pettay.fi; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com;
> raj@openstream.com; dahl@conversational-technologies.com;
> public-speech-api@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Co-chair****
>
> ** **
>
> I think that we can move to a standards-track group at any time. The main
> thing that we need to do is to submit a charter, first to W3C management
> and then to the AC list. Dan has a draft charter, I think, that can serve
> as a template. Once we agree on the content, we submit it, handle any
> comments we get, and we're in business.
>
> Jim****
>
> ** **
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From*: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> *To*: Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>; Jerry Carter <
> jerry@jerrycarter.org>; Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> (ij@w3.org) <ij@w3.org>;
> Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org) <schepers@w3.org>
> *Cc*: olli@pettay.fi <olli@pettay.fi>; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com <
> bringert@google.com>; satish@google.com <satish@google.com>;
> raj@openstream.com <raj@openstream.com>;
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>;
> public-speech-api@w3.org <public-speech-api@w3.org>
> *Sent*: Wed Jun 13 16:38:19 2012
> *Subject*: RE: Co-chair ****
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>