Re: New Charter

We at Google believe the spec is ready to be implemented by browser vendors
in a compatible way. The few remaining open issues are not blocking issues,
and getting early feedback from web authors will provide great insight in
charting the course for future work on the spec. We believe that it's most
important right now for browser vendors to focus on implementation, rather
than attempting to resolve the few remaining issues without feedback from
web developers building real-world JavaScript applications using it.

/Glen Shires

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  ** **
>
> *From:* Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] ****
>
> ** **
>
> We at Google are pleased with the current progress in this CG of the
> Speech JavaScript API Specification, and believe that it is nearing
> completion, at least an initial version that can be implemented compatibly
> across multiple browsers.  We believe it provides a rich toolset for web
> authors, and that getting early feedback from web authors is valuable. As
> such, we believe the major task ahead is to complete implementations and
> test suites.****
>
> *[Milan] *We’ve had a similar discussion on this topic before, and that
> thread was brought to a close with a statement from our chair Glen [1].  He
> made three points in that mail that I’d like to review:**
>
> **1)      **We were planning to wrap up work before TPAC.  This statement
> was in turn followed up by another email from Glen in which he stated that
> he and Hans would work to summarize in-progress discussions as editor notes
> [2].  That second statement was made in the context of prioritizing
> wrapping up our work so that we would have time to transition into a WG
> within the agreed TPAC timeframe.  This is in contrast to the model where
> we would push out the date in hopes of achieving stability.****
>
> **2)      **Test suites are nice to have, but they would not blocking
> formation of a WG.****
>
> **3)      **Once the Speech API is adopted by a WG, we can conclude this
> CG.  I’d like to point out that the Speech JavaScript API is an explicit
> part of the new WG charter.****
>
> * *
>
> In short, your statement constitutes a major reversal of the premise of
> this CG.  Please clarify.****
>
>
>
> We wish to continue as a CG to rapidly complete this work, rather than
> take on the overhead of forming a new WG. We will not join a new WG at this
> time.****
>
> *[Milan] *Yes, there is a bit of overhead to forming a WG, but most of
> that has already been done for you.  As far as operating within a WG, I see
> significant gains to what we can accomplish, and we’ll have a
> standards-track document to show in the end.****
>
> Thanks****
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Jun/0139.html***
> *
>
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Aug/0026.html***
> *
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> Cheers
> Satish****
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> wrote:****
>
> I suggest we use the attached as the first draft for our new charter.
> After gathering feedback from this group, I am planning to push the
> document through the usual channels.****
>
>  ****
>
> Note that I’ve also requested space at the upcoming TPAC, which I’m hoping
> will serve as our first meeting (informal or otherwise).  We’re on the
> waiting list for a room to free up (made the line August 7th).  I believe
> Matt Wormer is trying something similar, so please respond to his post [1]
> if you can make it.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks****
>
>  ****
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Sep/0021.html***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>