[Fiware-coaches] minutes of the today call + fiware evaluation criteria slides

[stefano de panfilis]

dear ilknur,

regrdless you want to push for the criterion 5, anyway, as agreed and told
to everybody, we are the responsibles for the fiware part evalutaion. so,
somehow yes, you have to approuve evaluations made by external experts for
what concerns the fiware part.

however, there is no need to review all of them, but only those who seems
to you to be outliers :-)

ciao,
stefano

2014-12-10 15:10 GMT+01:00 Chulani, Ilknur <ilknur.chulani at atos.net>:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>
>
> I have a concern/question similar to Silvio’s. Some of the accelerator
> projects are about to complete their evaluation process soon, and adding
> this criterion now might be disruptive.
>
>
>
> For instance SmartAgriFood and FI-Adopt are about to complete their
> evaluation process in the next few days, without involvement from the
> FI-WARE coaches.  At this point, do we still need to interrupt their
> process, and impose ourselves? (i.e. either by adding this criteria or by
> adding the step for us to approve their evaluations) Or do we let this
> round of evaluations go without interference from us, but set the ground
> rules for the next calls they might have?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> ilknur
>
>
>
> *From:* fiware-coaches-bounces at lists.fi-ware.org [mailto:
> fiware-coaches-bounces at lists.fi-ware.org] *On Behalf Of *
> silvio.cretti at create-net.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2014 1:18 AM
> *To:* stefano de panfilis; fiware-coaches at lists.fi-ware.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-coaches] minutes of the today call + fiware
> evaluation criteria slides
>
>
>
> Dear Stefano, all
> thanks for the minutes and the criteria.
> Apologise but today I didn't attend the telco because I had another telco
> at the same time I had to chair.
> Regarding the criteria I am quited concerned about the 5th one.
> This appear to me to be "qualitative" with respect to the other ones
> related to the rapid screening: how can we measure the hidden value of
> FIWARE? Almost every proposal can provide a context where there is a hidden
> value of FIWARE but measuring it is quite difficult. How can we rank the
> proposals? As far as I know providing a FIWARE architecture is exactly what
> we asked in the first 4 criteria to the proposal writers. Why now changing
> the point of view?
> Moreover it appears that this criterium supersedes the others and this
> appears to me to be unfair with repsect to the proposal well written with
> already a good "FIWARE" architecture inside.
> Last but not least: in CreatiFI we are in the middle of the evaluation of
> the proposals so adding now this criterium is disruptive.
> As an alternative why don't say that the proposals should be evaluated
> first of all from the business idea/impact point of view and among the ones
> selected in this way we can apply the first four criteria just in order to
> rank them. It appears to me to be more quantitative and in line with what
> we did in the past.
> Best regards
>   silvio
>
> On 12/02/14 20:06, stefano de panfilis wrote:
>
>  dear all,
>
>
>
> as per subject.
>
> instead of this evening i'll send the spreadsheet tomorrow after having
> get all your comments on the criteria.
>
>
>
> ciao,
>
> stefano
>
>
>
> --
>
> Stefano De Panfilis
> Chief Innovation Officer
> Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
> via Riccardo Morandi 32
> 00148 Roma
> Italy
>
> tel (direct): +39-068307-4295
> tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513
> fax: +39-068307-4200
> cell: +39-335-7542-567
>
> skype: depa01
>
> twitter: @depa01
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>
> Fiware-coaches mailing list
>
> Fiware-coaches at lists.fi-ware.org
>
> https://lists.fi-ware.org/listinfo/fiware-coaches
>
>
>  Bu mesaj ve ekleri gönderilen kişiye özeldir ve gizli bilgiler
> içerebilir. Eğer mesajın gönderilmek istendiği kişi değilseniz lütfen
> kopyalamayınız, başkalarına göndermeyiniz ve göndericiyi bilgilendiriniz.
> Internet üzerinden gönderilen mesajların güvenli ve hatasız olduğunun
> garantisi olmadığından Atos grubu mesajın içeriğinden sorumlu tutulamaz.
> Göndericinin bilgisayarı anti-virüs sistemleri tarafından taranmaktadır,
> ancak yine de mesajın virüs içermediği garanti edilemez ve gönderici,
> meydana gelebilecek zararlardan sorumlu tutulamaz.
>
> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended
> solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this
> e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As
> its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability
> cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavors
> to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that
> this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages
> resulting from any virus transmitted.
>


-- 
Stefano De Panfilis
Chief Innovation Officer
Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
via Riccardo Morandi 32
00148 Roma
Italy

tel (direct): +39-068307-4295
tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513
fax: +39-068307-4200
cell: +39-335-7542-567
skype: depa01
twitter: @depa01
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-coaches/attachments/20141212/bd5c09c8/attachment.html>