- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:31:49 -0500
- To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Group,
The minutes from yesterday's call are available at http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-htmlspeech-minutes.html
For convenience, a text version is embedded below.
Thanks to Matt Womer for taking the minutes.
-- dan
**********************************************************************************
HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference
08 Dec 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Dec/0005.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/08-htmlspeech-irc
Attendees
Present
Matt_Womer, Michael_Bodell, Dan_Burnett, Avery_Bishop,
Charles_Hemphill, Glen_Shires, Satish_Sampath, Debbie_Dahl
Regrets
Olli_Pettay, Bjorn_Bringert
Chair
Michael_Bodell
Scribe
Dan_Burnett, matt
Contents
* [4]Topics
* [5]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<mbodell>
[6]http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-201112
06/
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-20111206/
That link is for the final report
Michael: congrats everyone, XG is officially done.
... last week discussed next steps, there were some differing
opinions
burn: To summarize what's going on. This call is for a last minute
sanity check. The final report wasn't done yet, Michael was on
vacation. So, the report is done, Michael is here. Now the question
is what do we need to talk about?
mbodell: There's agreement within the group that at least part of
the work relating to the Web API JavaScript and markup bindings
should be at W3C. There's disagreement about where within W3C.
burn: There is some discussion about where the protocol work should
live too.
mbodell: The leading contenders are WebApps or a new WG.
burn: Satish, have you had any more discussion with the WebApps
chairs?
Satish: I got positive feedback about it. They are happy to have us
post the report to their list and discuss it.
... Now that we have the final report we should post it there.
mbodell: The issue with WebApps is whether all of the folks will
waive IP on about this.
burn: There will be IP discussions within WebApp just as in a new
group.
Satish: We will all be there, whether it's WebApps or a separate
group.
burn: I would be careful saying "we" there.
... There was moderate agreement that it was clear that they could
join either a new group or WebApps if they weren't already in
WebApps.
Satish: Many are in WebApps and those that aren't can join.
mbodell: No matter which path is taken, or even if both are taken
for a time, there will be W3C management and AC review too.
... There will be scrutiny over this stuff.
... If there are people in WebApps who have trouble releasing IP on
this, they may want a new group. Or people inside WebApps thinking
it should be outside the group or in will start arguing.
burn: mbodell and I have written a draft charter that we'd like
circulating within W3C.
... W3C is going to be involved in where this work lives, one way or
another.
... Charter proposals don't guarantee new groups, but discussions.
... One thing you should be careful or sensitive about with whatever
you say about WebApps -- we should say "here's a link to the XG
report, is this work we could taken on here?", because one of the
last things most groups want is to take on discussions that could
have IP issues around it start happening in a WG without clear
indication that it's happening.
Satish: It might be useful if you could make the post in WebApps if
that is ok.
burn: It'd be appropriate for the chairs to email their list about
the report saying there is discussion about where it should live.
Either case they should take a look at it because of the expertise
in the group.
... As chair, I'm uncomfortable recommending that it happen there,
and as Voxeo, I'm even more uncomfortable with it there.
mbodell: There could be a generic email that you, I or someone else
could send with the URI in it. HTML, WebApps, maybe Audio. Satish or
someone could reply to it within the WebApps WG.
Satish: If you think it's more appropriate we could ask it as a
separate question as well, something like that?
burn: Yes, something like that. I've got to join WebApps myself. Are
unsolicited posts allowed to the list from non-members?
Satish: I think it's possible yes.
burn: It's actually not appropriate for me to go join each of the
groups, so I'll post to the public list.
... The entire AC should have seen the announcement. It's
appropriate for me to now talk to individual groups.
... I'll mail the same email to each list. I'll say at the bottom
which groups have received it.
... I'll mail WebApps, HTML, VBWG, MMI, Audio, DAP (for capture),
Satish: Isn't DAP about non browser runtimes?
burn: With WebRTC we are dealing with DAP on media.
mbodell: This isn't a suggestion that these groups are being asked
to continue work on this. It's just to inform them.
ddahl: Accessibility?
burn: In this email, I don't have a clear recommendation for where
feedback should go. The member list still exists, the public list is
closed but could reopen.
mbodell: I think we should say that this is a doc you might be
interested in reading, and say that the work will get picked up
somewhere.
glen: Does it make sense to have our list open until we have a home?
Satish: Does it make sense that we have a place to inform them about
where the work goes?
burn: Actually, the member list is closed, the public list is open.
... We should make clear on the public list that there may be IP
discussions going on about where the work should live. I'd like the
public list to just be a place holder for feedback.
... It's a great place for a future group to store comments.
... I think we can use the public list that way with appropriate
caveats.
... The phone bridge slot is still here, but we're not supposed to
be doing work here.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2011 14:32:29 UTC