[Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governanceorganisation document

[Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)]

Dear Jose,

 

thank you for this new version. Please find attached our comments with revision marks.

 

                Best regards,

 

                                Werner

 

 

Dr. Werner Mohr 

Head of Research Alliances

Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH

CEF T&S IE Research Alliances

St. Martin Strasse 76

81541 Munich

Germany

Office phone:         +49-89-5159-35117

Office fax:               +49-89-5159-35121

Mobile phone:       +49-171-3340 788

e-Mail:                     werner.mohr at nsn.com

 

Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH 

Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel 

Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich 

Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081

 

 

From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:32 PM
To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-ga] RV: Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governanceorganisation document

 

Dear all Fi-WARE members

 

As some of you may be aware, the version of the Governance model that was discussed at the PCC was not accepted by all the projects. A new draft has been made. I am enclosing this new draft for your comments

 

Please send us your comments for sending them to the editor

 

 

 

We (Telefonica) have also made some comments (see below). If you disagree with some of them, please let us also know. 

 

Telefonica Comments 

*	The scope of activities of the so-called "Standardization Working Group" in previous drafts have extended to cover "Technical Guidance" which doesn't have any sense and creates a clear overlap with the Architecture Board mission.   There is absolute no need for this and I rather oppose to creation of any group that deal with Technical Guidance.   
*	In general terms, I have to say I'm rather skeptical about existence of any kind of Standardization WG at program level.   I understand it sounds nice but I doubt of its effectiveness.   In practice, standardization activities, if suitable, are pushed by interested parties when they have a strategic interest of it.   Besides, need for standardization of a given spec is something that will be identified as relevant as project level.   This means that, in practice, these kind of WGs don't use to provide much more value than simply dealing with dissemination of standardization efforts (e.g., help that partners of the program be aware of some standardization effort).   Anyway, this is not a strong opinion as compared to the previous.   I can live with the existence of a Standardization WG, it's simply that I doubt how much useful it may be.    Another consideration is that maybe the leader of this WG should be assigned by the AB rather than the SB.
*	Pure editorial: unless I'm wrong and you are thinking that the DM and the BM roles are project-level role, I would then put as part of section 2 and I would retitled this section 3 as "Project-level roles"
*	I believe that there is part of the description of the DM that should go into the description of the BM role.   I believe that the DM should be limited to perform activities dealing with wide dissemination of the FI-PPP have good networking with journalist, bloggers, etc and have the experience of setting up and coordinating large events.   S/he would also deal ensure that the FI-PPP website are designed well enough to serve the dissemination goal.   S/he also deal with designing and manage the presence of the FI-PPP in relevant social web networks (Twitter, etc).   You know that this is more than enough and deserves assigning one person for that mission, without the need to give her/him any other extra burden like business/market analysis, sustainability, etc.

  With regard to implementation options, I don't have strong opinions but I believe that introducing this text in the DoW is enough and would probably the faster solution.   This may create some inconsistencies with the Consortium Agreements signed by partners of the projects, but as far as I understand this shouldn't be a problem because the CAs are not known by the EC nor are part of the contract.   Then we can instruct the legal departments to fix the CAs to align with the DoW but this doesn't need to be carried out in urgent mode.

 

 

De: David Kennedy [mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de febrero de 2013 22:29
Para: FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; Federico Álvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es); Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com)
Asunto: FI-PPP Phase 2 Proposed revision of the FI-PPP governance organisation document

 

Hi phase 2 project leaders,

 

Please find attached a proposed revision of the management document where I have tried to accept the commission requested and industry proposed improvements in the governance.

 

In particular we should try to support a dynamic decision making processes,  while trying to avoid ending up in contradiction of the collaboration agreement, The negotiation meeting showed a good co-operative spirit which I have tried to capture.

 

The role of the text is to ensure that all participating projects have the same understanding of the expectations on them in terms of their responsibilities to participate in programme level activities and to commit the appropriate resources. We can solve many problems if we commit enough resources to programme level activities in our DoWs.

 

A key point is to ensure that the Steering board, and in turn the project coordinators, are empowered to make the necessary programme decisions in good time, while respecting the need to consider the impact on individual project and participant resources.

 

The intention is also to ensure that the Project coordinators are prepared for programme level decisions by having project resources assigned to the programme level activities from the start of the project. This should mean that the coordinator responsibility for SB decisions on such activities does not imply any new or unforeseen resource allocations. If these resources are not used they can be redeployed later in the projects life. 

 

The main challenge is how to introduce the industry strategic  input.  This has been introduced already to some extent by the commission inviting some players to consult with Stančič last year and the commissioner this year.  Maybe the practical approach is just to acknowledge this and work with that group through a steering board decision to formalise this liaison.  The alternative is to create an addendum to the collaboration agreement, but this could take a very long time to get the agreement of all (160+) parties.  Anyway, please read the suggestions at the back of the document and consider the most pragmatic solution.

 

May I ask for the project leaders to give a reply on behalf of their projects in an impossibly short time as ideally I would like to assemble a commented version on Friday - but I will understand if I can get the comments by Monday morning at the very latest.   I only sent this to the project leader contacts I am aware of - the project leaders must decide for themselves who in their respective consortiums they wish to share this with.

 

With this version we are risking that we are not showing enough commitment to make the management work as the commission would like to see -  so please, when commenting, try not to remove all commitments and responsibilities.  We must make some commitments to being proactive and positive in making this programme work - if we sterilise the text too much the commission will enforce theirs. It is not perfect - but is it adequate?

 

Thanks for your co-operation,

 

David

 

 

David Kennedy

Director

Eurescom GmbH

Wieblinger Weg 19/4

D-69123 Heidelberg

Germany

 

Phone:  +49 6221 989 122

Mobile: +49 171 286 1753

 

EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration

 

EURESCOM - European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in Telecommunications GmbH. 
Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany.
Geschäftsführer (Director) David M. Kennedy.
Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) Paul Jenkins.
Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410.
Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672.
VAT Nr. DE 143457825

 

 

________________________________


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130208/4b9fdd5e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213_NSN.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 323488 bytes
Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure Revised after Negotation meeting_060213_NSN.docx
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130208/4b9fdd5e/attachment.obj>