Response to request to review speech cg communications

On 26 Sep 2012, at 5:46 PM, Young, Milan wrote:

> Glen and Satish,
> 
> You've listed two objections to continuing upon our agreed path to a standards track document.  I'd like to reiterate that I'm open to accommodating your needs on both topics (see below).
> 
> Let's please at least have that dialog.


Milan and Speech CG,

Per your request I have reviewed the chartering thread. Below I
excerpt what I think are key communications, and after that I make a
few observations.

If I have misunderstood any of the communications, please let me know.

Ian Jacobs, Community Development Lead 

==============
Communications

* In April 2012, Glen Shires proposed the Speech API CG with an
  initial description. That description did not set expectations one
  way or another about advancing work to a WG. Glen Shires appointed
  himself Chair of the group.

* In June there were discussions about a co-Chair. There was some
  support for the idea, but also opposition.  The Chair did not choose
  to appoint a co-Chair [0].

  In that email [0], the Chair wrote: "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."

* In June there were discussions about moving the CG specification to
  a WG, including email from the Chair [1] which stated:

  "Yes, our plan has always been to merge our work into an official
   standards-track deliverable....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."

* On 14 June the Chair wrote [2]:

  "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...I estimate the initial version of this spec will
   be completed by end of the year."

* On 19 June the Chair wrote [3]:

  "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."

* In August the Chair wrote [4]:

  "Yes, I'd like to hear everyone's nominations for potential W3C
  WGs. I nominate WebApps."

  In the same thread, others suggested Device APIs [5] and other WGs
  as well [6], [7].

* The group began to engage with WebApps. I do not find a record of
   the outcome of that conversation in the archive, but the decision
   was not to move the work to WebApps.

* Milan Young then proposed a charter for a new Working Group [8]. Two
  people replied. On 10 September Milan proposed a charter [9] with
  "JavaScript Speech API" as a Recommendation track deliverable.

  It was reasonable to expect, based on previous statements from the
  Chair [3] and Google employee Satish S [10], that the creation of
  this new Working Group would signal that "the [community] group's
  purpose would have been fulfilled," implying the Community Group
  would close.

* Google then indicated [11] they did not support the creation of a
  new WG and did not plan to join the WG if approved.  About this
  position, the Chair wrote on 18 September [12]:

  "This is indeed a change of my opinion of what we should be doing at
  this point."

===============
My observations

1) The record indicates that the Chair set expectations for the
   Community Group about consensus-based decision-making. 

   While the W3C Process Document makes clear that consensus is a
   driving principle in Working Groups, and that Working Group Chairs
   must seek consensus, the same is not true for Community Groups. The
   CG process does not require consensus-based decisions (but does
   recommend them).

   Community Groups do not have the same expectations for Chairing
   that Working Groups have. Participants who do not agree with how a
   group is chaired can leave the group and create a different one.

2) The record indicates that the Chair set expectations during the
   life of the CG that the plan had "always been" to merge the work
   into an official standards-track deliverable.

   The Chair later acknowledged that he "changed opinion." Changing
   option is not a Community Group process violation (but there are
   social costs to doing so).

   The CG process does not require that work move to a WG. The CG
   process does not require that a CG close when work does move to a
   WG.

3) The Community Group process does place a small number of
   requirements on "operational agreements" of the group [13]. I am
   not aware of operational agreements for this group.

4) The CG process says that the W3C staff can close a CG. Grounds
   include "When, in the judgment of the Community Development Lead,
   the group has committed a serious violation of this policy, for
   instance exceeding its scope."

   My conclusion is that there has not been a violation of the
   Community Group Process that would serve as grounds for closing the
   group.

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0073.html
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0063.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0090.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0139.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0001.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0009.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0017.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0019.html
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0102.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0025.html
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0120.html
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0090.html
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0091.html
[13] http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/#operational-agreement

Received on Monday, 8 October 2012 03:15:38 UTC