- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:22:51 +0000
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- Cc: Satish S <satish@google.com>, olli@pettay.fi, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Peter Beverloo <peter@chromium.org>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Hi Michael, Thanks for the info! On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > Satish S <satish@google.com>, 2012-01-11 10:04 +0000: > >> The Community Groups [1] page says they are for "anyone to socialize their >> ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization". > > I don't think that page adequately describes the potential value of the > Community Group option. A CG can be used for much more than just > socializing ideas for some hope of standardization someday. > >> The HTML Speech Incubator Group has done a considerable amount of work and >> the final report [2] is quite detailed with requirements, use cases and API >> proposals. Since we are interested in transitioning to the standards track >> now, working with the relevant WGs seems more appropriate than forming a >> new Community Group. > > I can understand you seeing it that way, but I hope you can also understand > me saying that I'm not at all sure it's more appropriate for this work. > > I think everybody could agree that the point is not just to produce a spec > that is nominally on the W3C standards track. Having something on the W3C > standards track doesn't necessarily do anything magical to ensure that > anybody actually implements it. > We have strong interest from Mozilla and Google to implement. Would this not be sufficient to have this API designed in this group? Thanks, Andrei > I think we all want is to for Web-platform technologies to actually get > implemented across multiple browsers, interoperably -- preferably sooner > rather than later. Starting from the WG option is not absolutely always the > best way to cause that to happen. It is almost certainly not the best way > to ensure it will get done more quickly. > > You can start up a CG and have the work formally going on within that CG in > a matter of days, literally. In contrast, getting it going formally as a > deliverable within a WG requires a matter of months. > > Among the things that are valuable about formal deliverables in WGs is that > they get you RF commitments from participants in the WG. But one thing that > I think not everybody understands about CGs is that they also get you RF > commitments from participants in the CG; everybody in the CG has to agree > to the terms of the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement - > > http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/ > > Excerpt: "I agree to license my Essential Claims under the W3C CLA RF > Licensing Requirements. This requirement includes Essential Claims that I own" > > Anyway, despite what it may seem like from what I've said above, I'm not > trying to do a hard sell here. It's up to you all what you choose to do. > But I would like to help make sure you're making a fully informed decision > based on what the actual benefits and costs of the different options are. > > --Mike > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/about/#cg >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech/ > > -- > Michael[tm] Smith > http://people.w3.org/mike/+ >
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 13:30:59 UTC