Dear Juanjo,
I see in Arian’s email and his proposed changes a list of GEs candidates to be stopped. Therefore I can understand you request presentations for those specific GEs.
Now regarding the other GEs you mentioned for the Chapter I’m wondering how you did come up with them since there was no mentioning in Arian’s email. Could you please clarify ?
Regarding Security Chapter and If I could have anticipated for what concerns Privacy GE, I was not for Cyber Sec GE and Trustworthy GE.
Last but not least and if based on your demand we can prepare presentations elaborating on why activities linked to these GEs have to be maintained let’s here (and especially the GE owners) decide on the strong cases even more than some of the strong case you propose are not properly in line with what the GE does/offers (this is especially true for what concerns Trustworthy Factory and the strong case you propose ).
Now and with all these GEs presentations I have doubts we would have time to get them all be presented …
Hearing from you.
Best Regards
Pascal
De : fiware-chapter-leaders-bounces at lists.fi-ware.org [mailto:fiware-chapter-leaders-bounces at lists.fi-ware.org] De la part de Juanjo Hierro
Envoyé : vendredi 17 juillet 2015 14:07
À : MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO; fiware-chapter-leaders at lists.fi-ware.org; fiware-chapter-architects at lists.fi-ware.org; fiware-wg-leaders at lists.fi-ware.org; Chulani, Ilknur; Clara Maria Pezuela Robles; Malena Donato Cohen; Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; Pablo Honrubia
Objet : Re: [Fiware-chapter-leaders] Fwd: RE: Review of the FI-CORE contract
Hi all,
Sorry that I couldn't send you a message earlier but this message was received while I was in Washington. I also asked for some clarifications before sending this message to you.
As Miguel has anticipated, chapter leaders in which chapters there are FIWARE GEs for which stop of the development is requested should prepare a brief presentation (no more than 10 minutes per GE) where they explain where they are and why they believe it is worth keeping the activity.
References to some of the FIWARE GEs that would be affected are more explicit, while others are not. I foward here you the list of FIWARE GEis for which this exercise has to be carried out, based on conversations I have had with the EC. I also provide some views on what you should focus your presentation on:
* Cloud chapter:
* rather than focused on specific GEs, it is the activity regarding cross-region enablement what they propose to stop. I don't understand pretty well what they are referring to, but since we were reshaping a lot of the activities in the Cloud chapter already, I would prepare a presentation where we elaborate on the replanning of activities in the chapter. Altogether, the presentation shouldn't last more than 10 minutes.
* Data/Media Context Management chapter:
* elaborate on why activities linked to the Event-driven orchestration GE have to be maintained (10 minutes)
* elaborate on why activities linked to Metadata Store Management Platform, Data Aggregator and Semantic Annotation GEs have to be maintained (altogether, 10 minutes)
* Advanced Web-based UI chapter:
* elaborate on why the UI chapter will not be longer an isolated chapter and will evolve to be strongly integrated with the rest of the FIWARE Reference Architecture through NGSI. I would focus the presentation on the task force on POIs we are carrying out and the current vision about strongly integrating chapter enablers with GEs of the data chapter through NGSI. (10 minutes)
* Apps/Service and Data Delivery:
* elaborate on why activities linked to SpagoBI have to be maintained (10 minutes)
* Security chapter:
* elaborate on why activities linked to Cyber Security related GEs have to be maintained. (altogether, 10 minutes)
* elaborate on why activities linked to Privacy GE have to be maintained. In particular, you have to come up with a strong case regarding how this GE could be integrated with the Identity, Authorization and Access Control framework currently in place. (10 minutes)
* elaborate on why activities linked to Trustworthy GE have to be maintained. In particular, you have to come up with a strong case regarding how this GE could be integrated with the Identity, Authorization and Access Control framework currently in place. (10 minutes)
* Advanced middleware and I2ND:
* elaborate on why activities linked to the KIARA GE have to be maintained (10 minutes)
* elaborate on why activities linked to robotics have to be maintained (10 minutes)
* elaborate on why activities linked to SDN and interfaces to networks have to be maintained (10 minutes)
Regarding the presentation, you should prepare a presentation with only 3 slides:
* what have been the results so far
* why the activity should be kept, putting emphasis in what is the differential value that the results will bring to the FIWARE offering (competitive advantage compared to existing solutions), and what are the target goals in the remaining of FI-Core
* what is the commitment to support the affected GEs in the market and whether there is any endorsement regarding usage/adoption
Note that based on the above, we would consume already 110 minutes, let's say 120 minutes. Consequently, we should keep a slot in the agenda specifically devoted to this which last 2hours.
Note also that we will have to be rather strict. 10 minutes will be absolute maximum. Presentations will be cut when the time limit is reached.
Feel free to invite to the owners of the specific GEs either to make the presentations themselves or provide the necessary support during the review.
You should inform all the FIWARE GE owners affected and communicate them that, depending on recommendations after the review, it may be decided that funding of their activities be discontinued starting formally August 1st.
Note that potential discontinuation in the funding of the activities may not have to do with quality of the work being carried out. It is more a matter of re-prioritization of activities in the project, which require that some activities be reinforced or new activities be covered. This means that funding has to be re-allocated. Indeed, activities regarding some of the FIWARE GEs under question may continue if the corresponding GEri owner decides to do so on its own (regarding new GEs this would mean entering an incubation process following the FIWARE Community Governance Model). It would be mostly a matter of whether they would get funded under FI-Core or not.
The rest of points that the EC is asking us to elaborate about were (or can be) more or less covered in the already defined agenda for the review. I'll come back to you along the weekend with specific comments in their respect.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
______________________________________________________
Coordinator and Chief Architect, FIWARE platform
CTO Industrial IoT, Telefónica
email: juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>
twitter: @JuanjoHierro
You can follow FIWARE at:
website: http://www.fiware.org
twitter: @FIWARE
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
On 16/07/15 10:21, MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO wrote:
Dear all,
A new message from the PO that has a more thorough explanation of what they are expecting from the review.
I will be on holidays starting at the end of today and for the coming week. I expect that this message will be dealt with on Tuesday at 13:00 CET. As I see this, all those in charge of the presentations should tweak them before Tuesday to comply with this.
In the meantime I've added this to the background info of our google doc with the review preparation:
* https://docs.google.com/document/d/16_SfW_KNMdTCzBIkb7391zm1quaAYrpqZX2thEV4jbU
Best regards,
Miguel
-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto:
RE: Review of the FI-CORE contract
Fecha:
Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:47:53 +0000
De:
Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
Para:
juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>, miguel.carrillopacheco at telefonica.com<mailto:miguel.carrillopacheco at telefonica.com>
CC:
Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, CNECT-ICT-632893 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-ICT-632893 at ec.europa.eu>
Dear Juanjo, Miguel,
As mentioned below, a review of the FI-Core activities is necessary to refocus the project on today’s priorities of the programme and to allow the project to stay relevant, efficient and effective.
Therefore, the following elements should be covered in this review meeting:
1. Problem Statement: what are the shortcomings the A16 subgrantees and other customers have identified with respect to:
o Competitive advantage of the FIWARE enablers as compared to other existing solutions
o Quality of enablers (specifications, software, documentation, …)
o Support for the enablers
o FIWARE Lab (design, capacity, usability, and customer support)
o Sustainability (strategy)
2. Analysis: for each of the points above, why is it (perceived as) a problem? What are the causes?
3. Way forward: general directions and principles
4. Proposed changes to the existing workplan
Based on internal discussions and discussions with experts, we believe that the following points should be reviewed:
1. Way forward: general directions and principles
a. Focus on a small number of enablers
· Based on (the maturity of) FIWAREness: what does it mean to be a FIWARE enabler? What sets a FIWARE enabler apart from other solutions? Why should a certain component be called a "FIWARE enabler"?
· Based on potential value for customers, i.e. subgrantees and other third parties, during the lifetime of the FI-PPP
b. Increased usage of professional expertise, either from the consortium's companies (but outside their research departments) or outside the consortium
c. Ongoing activities would strongly benefit from a change of way-of-working
2. Proposed changes:
a. Usefulness of existing activities
· Stop GEs that have “low FIWAREness”, based on agreed definition of FIWAREness, e.g. NGSI-compliance.
· Stop development of GEs that are considered less potentially valuable, resulting from the A16 input analysis
· Stop development on new GEs:
· Cross-region enablement
· Event Driven Orchestration
· I2ND
· Open Data Support -/- Open Data Portal
· Data Visualisation and Analysis
· Stop enablers that are separate, i.e. standing on their own, without links to selected Enablers, and that are not integratable.
· Stop the demos in WP1.1
· Stop sponsoring 2 out of 6 Campus Party events
b. Competitive advantage of the FIWARE enablers as compared to other existing solutions
· Strengthen FIWAREness
· Improve interoperability of Enablers with each other
c. Quality of enablers
· Implement a stress test focused on reliability and scalability
· Extend friendly testing to all supported enablers
· Implement a wide-ranging bounty program to improve quality
· Implement a high-quality technical support to developers and accelerators based on a service-level agreement
d. Support for the enablers
· Improve support (e.g. helpdesk) related to enablers
· Improve documentation
· Give “how-to” examples, improve usability of enablers
· Improve training materials and tutorials, e.g. by involving two Mexican partners
e. FIWARE Lab
· Provide a reliable plan to ensure that no bottlenecks in networking and computing performance will occur
· Provide attractive trial user places and allow a much wider participation of users outside Phase 3
· Consider stopping the federation of nodes
· Improve availability and usability of the Lab
· Improve support related to the Lab based on a service-level agreement
· Provide appropriate access to open data sources linked into FIWARE Lab (e.g. in collaboration with the Connecting Europe Facility)
f. Sustainability (strategy)
· Appoint an (external) community manager (team) to drive the building of the open source community
· Set up a foundation before end 2015 and implement the transition of FIWARE in a foundation led initiative
· Enlarge the industrial commitment with companies interested to become long-term partners in the FIWARE foundation and support the open source community
· Get pre-commercial providers as new partners (part of the open call(s))
· Implement a FIWARE application store
· Implement an outreach program for H2020 projects considering/using FIWARE, including support and training
· Improve dramatically social media outreach, move from communications to marketing, improve showcasing of success stories
g. Other
· Present a clear plan for the use of the resources dedicated to the open call (10% of the overall budget)
Best regards,
Arian
_____________________________________________
From: QUENTAL MENDES Lisete (CNECT) On Behalf Of VILLASANTE Jesus (CNECT)
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:44 PM
To: 'juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com<mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>'
Cc: FATELNIG Peter (CNECT); ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT)
Subject: Review of the FI-CORE contract
Importance: High
Dear Juanjo,
Further to our conversation during the FIWARE Accelerator meeting in Paris on 12 June, I summarise below the main guidance for the upcoming review of the FI-CORE contract.
To review the activities of FI-CORE is critically necessary in order to refocus the project on todays priorities of the FIWARE programme and to allow the project to stay relevant, efficient and effective. The outcome of this may lead to an amendment of the contract with a revised technical annex.
Considering the clear forward-looking objective of this ad-hoc review, it will deviate to some extent from the regular review process and focus less on progress achieved, checking deliverables and matching resources to plans (this will be done in the next annual review). Rather the specific topics for the review will concentrate on key project activities crucial for the success of the project and the FI-PPP Phase 3. The agenda of the ad-hoc review meeting and the conversation with the experts, the Commission services and the project team, will address:
· Quality of the existing set of enablers. How best to reach a production level quality on all enablers on offer. Consider a 'service-level agreement'-like support for developers for a high level technical support to developers and accelerators.
· The capacity of the FIWARE Lab to satisfy the needs of the startups and SMEs in phase 3 and its evolution to pre-commercial services. Provide a reliable plan to ensure that the recent bottlenecks in networking and computing performance will not occur again. This may require a higher allocation of resources to this task. Provide appropriate access to open data sources linked into FIWARE Lab and the open access to this experimental sand-box environment by anybody (trial and community users). Present a clear plan for the use of the resources dedicated to the open call (10% of the overall budget). Notably in the context of increased communications and the support for pre-commercial FIWARE Labs.
· Sustainability: Launching and supporting the open source community with sufficient support and resources to make it successful. The setup of a foundation before year end and the transition of FIWARE in a foundation led initiative. Enlarge the industrial commitment with companies interested to become long-term partners in the FIWARE foundation and support the open source community.
· A communication strategy which focusses on communicating a product-like image of FIWARE, supports the open source community and launches a social media campaign to reach out world-wide.
The documentation necessary for this ad-hoc review should be short but convincing in order to provide a conclusive view of the changes required at this stage and to ensure that FI-CORE fulfils the strategic tasks necessary for the PPP phase 3. Please deliver input documents around those topics at least 10 days before the review takes place.
I expect that FI-CORE as project will adhere to the new work plan as of 1 July 2015. Therefore, please initiate the necessary instructions to the consortium partners to halt work in areas likely to be restructured.
Finally, please make sure that this note reaches every beneficiary of the FI-CORE contract.
Kind regards,
Jesus Villasante
Jesus VILLASANTE
Head of Unit
<< OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) >>
European Commission
DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
E3: Net Innovation
BU25 3/81
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
+32 2 29-63521
Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
Fiware-chapter-leaders mailing list
Fiware-chapter-leaders at lists.fi-ware.org<mailto:Fiware-chapter-leaders at lists.fi-ware.org>
https://lists.fi-ware.org/listinfo/fiware-chapter-leaders
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-chapter-leaders/attachments/20150721/2fbe21dd/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy