Re: New Charter

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the charter was defined when the CG
was formed and is the one mentioned in
http://www.w3.org/community/speech-api/. That doesn't mention anything
about transitioning to a WG so it is clearly not part of the charter.

We did discuss about it in the CG earlier and Google's current position is
after careful consideration of the great progress made in the CG the timing
is right to focus on implementation and iterate based on web developer
feedback. I do see us continuing to improve the spec based on  feedback we
receive once there are UA implementations of the proposed API.

Our position is not inconsistent with the charter you proposed, but we
wanted to inform in context of the new charter discussion that we won't be
joining a new WG at this time.

Cheers
Satish


On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  Glen, I agree with what you have written below, but fail to see how this
> is inconsistent with the new charter.  If there is an inconsistency, please
> let me know so I can update the proposal.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’m also still awaiting your response to each of the three points I made
> below.  Being that your hold the position of chair, and given the context
> of the statements, the promises you made were essentially interpreted as
> being part of the groups charter.  (In fact I believe you are aware that
> many of us have remained active in this group precisely because of those
> promises.)  It would be a violation of the CG mission for this group to
> proceed otherwise without explicit consent from the members.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glen Shires [mailto:gshires@google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:33 PM
> *To:* Young, Milan
> *Cc:* Satish S; public-speech-api@w3.org; Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> (
> ij@w3.org)
> *Subject:* 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***
> *
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>