Re: Co-chair

Is calling the group a "dictatorship" really constructive? What dictatorial
decisions have you observed?

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  Airing grievances in a constructive fashion must not be considered
> breaking decorum.  The truth is that the several of us are very
> uncomfortable with what amounts to a Google dictatorship.  Convincing us
> that is it a benevolent dictatorship is a good portion of your leadership
> responsibility.****
>
> ** **
>
> But to the topic at hand, Hans has apologized, I accepted his apology, and
> I’m ready to move on.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:15 AM
> *To:* Young, Milan
> *Cc:* Ian Jacobs; Glen Shires; Jerry Carter; Doug Schepers (
> schepers@w3.org); olli@pettay.fi; Jim Barnett; bringert@google.com;
> raj@openstream.com (Openstream); dahl@conversational-technologies.comDahl;
> public-speech-api@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Co-chair****
>
> ** **
>
> As suggested earlier lets maintain decorum in the discussions and work
> constructively instead of pointing fingers at each other.****
>
> ** **
>
> Milan, I don't know the reason why the use cases haven't been added yet
> but I see no one else has chimed in the EMMA thread about the use cases. If
> you can propose wording for the use cases and that'll push it forward.****
>
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
> ****
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Glen,
>
> Anyone who was following [1] knew that giving up those attributes was a
> major concession, and attached to that concession was the request that use
> cases be documented [6].  It was wrong for the Google editor to quickly add
> the text they were interested while not even acknowledging the content of
> the arrangement.  What we need is a commitment that this class of editing
> will not take place in the future.  A pat on the back for a 14 minute
> turnaround time is exactly the wrong response.
>
> [6]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0057.html***
> *
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:58 PM
> To: Glen Shires; Young, Milan****
>
> Cc: Jerry Carter; Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org); olli@pettay.fi; Jim
> Barnett; bringert@google.com; satish@google.com; raj@openstream.com(Openstream);
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com Dahl; public-speech-api@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Co-chair****
>
> [Top-posting]
>
> Glen and Milan,
>
> Thank you very much for taking a close look at the concerns and working as
> a group toward consensus decisions and shared expectations!
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2012, at 9:26 PM, Glen Shires wrote:
>
> > 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.htm
> > l [2]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0061.htm
> > l [3]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0062.htm
> > l [4]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0076.htm
> > l [5]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0010.htm
> > l
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.htm
> > l
> >
> > [2]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0061.htm
> > l
> >
> > [3]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0062.htm
> > l
> >
> > [4]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0076.htm
> > l
> >
> > [5]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0010.htm
> > l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447****
>
> ** **
>



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