Re: Co-chair

Once the speech API spec gets adopted by a WG I think ongoing work can
happen there and this CG's purpose would be fulfilled. So I would think
subsequent revisions happen in the WG.

Re: TPAC, that gives us about 4 months from now and looks like sufficient
time to cover major topics including TTS.

Re: test suites, that is a requirement when the spec goes to a Candidate
Recommendation and I believe we can take the spec to a WG before the test
suite is ready. Glen, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers
Satish


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  Inline…****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:13 AM
> *To:* Young, Milan
> *Cc:* Jim Barnett; jerry@jerrycarter.org; ij@w3.org; schepers@w3.org;
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> 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. ****
>
> ** **
>
> [Milan] Could you please clarify whether work on those subsequent
> revisions would happen in this CG vs a WG?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> [Milan] My preference is that we have a draft worthy of review by the next
> TPAC.  I believe this will help inform our decision on joining an existing
> WG or creating our own.****
>
> ** **
>
> In order to do that, we’ll need a better gauge on the topics ahead.  Would
> you be available to sketch out our timeline?  Of particular concern to me
> is your mention of “test suites”.  That seems like a topic that could drag
> on for quite some time.  Do you view this as a prerequisite for inclusion
> into a WG?****
>
> ** **
>
> / Milan****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>