User engagement and PR

[Istvan Sebestyen]

Jesper,

We are working on it to find a solution to the problem. The concept is to make that public archive separate from the Ecma email system, where we do not allow such open archive. We have installed it on Google groups that is linked to the SC34-WG4 reflector, but for some unknown reasons it does not work. I have asked out IT people to look into the matter what is wrong. They have promised to visit us a next week or so.

Kind regards,
Istvan

Dr. Istvan SEBESTYEN
Ecma International
Secretary General
Rue du Rhône 114
CH-1204 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 849 6011
Fax:+41 22 849 6001
Cell: +41 79 206 3200
E-mail: istvan at ecma-international.org 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.dk] 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 9:34 AM
Cc: SC34-WG4
Subject: RE: User engagement and PR

Hi all,

Speaking of more publicity - what is the status of making an archive of our mail list publically available?

Jesper Lund Stocholm
ciber Danmark A/S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:innovimax at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 12:26 PM
> To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> Cc: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: User engagement and PR
> 
> Dear Muarata San,
> 
> Let me phrases some of your point differently
> 
> == National bodies ==
> 
> JTC 1/SC 34/WG 4 involves national bodies, it means the implementer
> have to cope with their national bodies FIRST OF ALL before being
> involved in WG 4
> My understanding (and I think people here will confirm this), many
> implementors are represented in the mirror committee of SC 34 in many
> countries (it is the case for France)
> So probably the problem is not representativity by itself, but
> permeability of those representative to access WG 4
> 
> It should be interesting that we dress up a list of representative of
> people involved in "mirror" committees and then try to "help" those
> people to participate
> 
> I myself try to make more small business companies being involved in
> the French mirror committee, since a recent law make now this free for
> them to participate (nonwithstanding the price of the time, effort and
> travel that remains)
> 
> == Readable archive of the mailing list ==
> 
> So now let's spot a real problem : the archive of the mailing list are
> not readable so few people participate. I already experienced this in
> CSS WG. So I think we FIRST need to solve this issue in order to move
> forward
> 
> == New open to public mailing list ==
> Could we create something like e-SC34-WG4-public mailing list where we
> could discuss thing with people and push some general discussion in
> there
> 
> I think this will help people keeping in touch with what we do
> 
> == Status of participant ==
> What would be the status of people participating to WG4 that HAVE NOT
> BEEN SENT by there national Body ? How can we ensure IP ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mohamed
> 
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > Our SC34 chair is preparing his JTC1 presentation and I had a chance
> > to help him.  This experience makes me reconsider WG4.  User
> > engagement is one of the titles in the JTC1 presentation template.
> >
> > WG4 has worked very hard.  I believe that WG4 has achieved
> > a lot and I am appreciative to everybody involved.  However,
> > if we would like to succeed in providing an infrastructure
> > of the IT world, working hard in creating specifications
> > is not good enough.  We have to sell our work to the world
> > and establish good relationship with those who use OOXML.
> >
> > Recently, our project editor wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, in more than 3 years, Ecma TC45 has received only 3 or 4 emails
> from
> >> members of the public, asking about details in the standard. I have
> received
> >> no correspondence from the public via JTC 1, and I don't recall
> anyone
> >> within WG4 saying they were contacted by the public and asked to
> submit any
> >> DRs on their behalf. In short, the level of direct technical inquiry
> from
> >> the public has been negligible.
> >
> > In my opinion, his observation reveals that we have to seriously
> > consider user engagement or PR.  I know that successful committees in
> > new standardization organizations (such as W3C, IETF, and OASIS)
> > receive a lot of feedbacks from non-members.
> >
> > Of course, political climate is not easy, and blogsphere provides
> > negative information about WG4 even now.  But we should try to
> improve
> > the current situation.
> >
> > Specifically, let me ask three questions:
> >
> > - WG4 needs more OOXML implementors as members.  WG4 has some, but
> >  not enough.  How can we attract more?
> >
> > - WG4 needs more feedbacks from the public.  This topic was discussed
> >  in London (AHG1) and we decided not to create a publicly-available
> >  web form or mailing list.  But can we now provide a better answer?
> >
> > - Can WG4 make it easy for non-members to follow our discussions?
> >  Given the lack of feedbacks, I guess that few non-members
> >  follow our discussions.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SC34/WG4 Convenor
> > MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 €