From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 24 12:00:47 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:00:47 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Patent request Message-ID: Dear PCC/GA I enclose this letters indicating some actions towards Patents related to FI-WARE initiated by Siemens We would kindly request Siemens to send us further information establishing whether those patents are considered essential and act accordingly to the conditions of the CA (enclosed) Thank you and Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18 - SIEMENS - Patent 1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 191757 bytes Desc: 18 - SIEMENS - Patent 1.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 192393 bytes Desc: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 2.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 260360 bytes Desc: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 3.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: consortium agreement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 256707 bytes Desc: consortium agreement.pdf URL: From p.amon at siemens.com Thu Jan 24 17:58:39 2013 From: p.amon at siemens.com (Amon, Peter) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:58:39 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Patent request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose, dear all, the mentioned patent applications originate from Siemens' work done in the context of FI-WARE. (In general, Siemens informs its project partners about these kind of activities by sending a letter to the coordinator of the project.) One set of patent applications (our reference "201209689", mentioned in two of the letters) relates to a feature in our implementation of the CDVA GE. Of course, Siemens will act in accordance with the consortium agreement. Kind regards Peter ______________________________ Peter Amon Research and Technology Center Imaging and Computer Vision Siemens AG Corporate Technology - CT RTC ICV VIA-DE Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 (89) 636-54642 Fax: +49 (89) 636-51115 mailto:p.amon at siemens.com Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Peter Loescher, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Joe Kaeser, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Suess; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322 From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2013 12:01 To: fiware-pcc; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; Riedl, Johannes Cc: PILAR PLASENCIA MAESO; PABLO MERINO MORO; johanna at siemens.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Subject: [Fiware-ga] Patent request Dear PCC/GA I enclose this letters indicating some actions towards Patents related to FI-WARE initiated by Siemens We would kindly request Siemens to send us further information establishing whether those patents are considered essential and act accordingly to the conditions of the CA (enclosed) Thank you and Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Jan 25 10:20:04 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:20:04 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] Patent request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear jose, yes we definitively need more info as the letter say nothing about which ge (only one says enough specifically that the video ge is involved), or part of them, is under patenting requests. anyway, that ge, is quite used by some uc projects and most likely will be used by others in phase 2. so this patent filing does not affect only fi-ware, but also the fi-ppp program as a whole. i guess actions in that direction should be taken as well. ciao, stefano ciao, stefano 2013/1/24 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC/GA > > > > I enclose this letters indicating some actions towards Patents related to > FI-WARE initiated by Siemens > > > > We would kindly request Siemens to send us further information establishing > whether those patents are considered essential and act accordingly to the > conditions of the CA (enclosed) > > > > Thank you and Best regards > > > > BR > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > -- 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 From jimenez at tid.es Mon Jan 28 10:10:52 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:10:52 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure Message-ID: Dear PCC, GA As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you essentially agree. If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your comments to the EC Best regards Now a new draft version Saludos -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1723392 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v4.doc URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 28 19:36:17 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:36:17 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5106C521.6040708@tid.es> Dear all, Please replace the document forwarded by Jos? Jim?nez this morning by the attached one. It is a clean version compared to the previous one and there are some minor changes also incorporated. Besides, this one is the last one shared with the EC. Sorry for the inconveniences. Cheers, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 28/01/13 10:10, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Dear PCC, GA As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you essentially agree. If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your comments to the EC Best regards Now a new draft version Saludos -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 333274 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Tue Jan 29 02:23:33 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:23:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear jose, i have some points to discuss as some of the measures are dangerous and someothers without a clear funding completely usless (good only to give money to friends of friends ...) i guess we will have a point in the agenda dedicated to this proposal rigth? ciao, stefano 2013/1/28 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC, GA > > > > As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version > of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long > history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and > then continuously adapted and improved. > > > > I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which > should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version > should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. > > > > We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to > you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved > by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, > what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you > essentially agree. > > > > If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). > Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. > > > > If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your > comments to the EC > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Now a new draft version > > > > Saludos > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > -- 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 From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 29 08:50:21 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:50:21 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Stefano, dear all, In principle, I had no plans to discuss the document at the coming PCC meeting, unless there is a wide interest from the floor. I think it is a discussion difficult to do over the phone Would it be all right if we have an e-mail discussion on those topics?. I am enclosing the document again for you to comment. I would suggest we take this discussion out of the PCC/GA list (to avoid bombarding the rest) and we shall only discuss it in a more limited group. Of course, we should inform the PCC/GA of the main conclusions I would like also to indicate we have received a mail from Peter (see attached). He is suggesting some more people (beyond the original two seats) could attend the meeting of the 4-5 February (again see the attached agenda). If you (or anyone else) wish to take advantage of this invitation, please just let us know. Thank you -----Mensaje original----- De: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 2:24 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure dear jose, i have some points to discuss as some of the measures are dangerous and someothers without a clear funding completely usless (good only to give money to friends of friends ...) i guess we will have a point in the agenda dedicated to this proposal rigth? ciao, stefano 2013/1/28 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC, GA > > > > As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new > version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a > very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared > by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. > > > > I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, > which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). > This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. > > > > We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending > it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not > fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally > yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and > say to Peter that you essentially agree. > > > > If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). > Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. > > > > If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass > your comments to the EC > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Now a new draft version > > > > Saludos > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico > en el enlace situado m?s 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-pcc mailing list > Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > -- 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 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu" Subject: Future Internet PPP Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:04:44 +0000 Size: 88567 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 333274 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean.docx URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 31 09:50:44 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:50:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: Dear all We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP partners" and not by the EIB * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the EIB. * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG decides in case of conflict." * The Technical Advisor disappears * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said that would be decided later. In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject to the discussions on Monday and your comments Best regards De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they do not imply major modifications to the document Therefore, the proposed changes so far are * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Is my reading correct? I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the predrafted minutes is https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# BR De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Importancia: Alta Dear Jos?, Dear Juanjo, Dear PCC Colleagues, Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) of the new proposed governance. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 ? : stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" Subject: FI-PPP Governance: revised draft for DoW Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:25:36 +0000 Size: 621282 URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jan 31 10:08:08 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:08:08 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: <510A3478.6060101@tid.es> Hi, It is also important to highlight that it is the intention of the EC, as explicitly stated in the email of Peter, to make this document be part of the DoWs, therefore it will become a contractual obligation at least for new projects (although I guess they may require to add it in our next amendments also). Note that text in the DoWs prevails over the Collaboration Agreement, so I guess formally there is no need indeed to change the Collaboration Agreement. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 31/01/13 09:50, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Dear all We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP partners" and not by the EIB * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the EIB. * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG decides in case of conflict." * The Technical Advisor disappears * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said that would be decided later. In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject to the discussions on Monday and your comments Best regards De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they do not imply major modifications to the document Therefore, the proposed changes so far are * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Is my reading correct? I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the predrafted minutes is https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# BR De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Importancia: Alta Dear Jos?, Dear Juanjo, Dear PCC Colleagues, Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) of the new proposed governance. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 ? : stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Thu Jan 31 13:35:21 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:35:21 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: dear jose, i still see some problems in the current text: 1. about the eib the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this should be done under the coordination of the ec. 2. about the pc this sentence "The PC also acts as a ?mediator? between two or more partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by the pc. 3. about pcg and ag i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. 4. the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the eib meetings. ciao, stefano 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear all > > > > We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, > based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It > is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. > > > > The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as > compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows > > > > > > ? Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB > (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of > the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented > > ? The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides > which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. > > ? Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP > partners" and not by the EIB > > ? The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to > coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. > The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the > EIB. > > ? The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to > have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG > decides in case of conflict." > > ? The Technical Advisor disappears > > ? The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has > already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to > clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now > > ? They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project > Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB > > ? It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said > that would be decided later. > > > > > > In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject > to the discussions on Monday and your comments > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ > DELGADO > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 > Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they > do not imply major modifications to the document > > > > > > > > Therefore, the proposed changes so far are > > > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be > decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Is my reading correct? > > > > > > I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the > predrafted minutes is > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# > > > > > > BR > > > > De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 > Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal > Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > Importancia: Alta > > > > Dear Jos?, > > Dear Juanjo, > > Dear PCC Colleagues, > > > > Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) > of the new proposed governance. > > > > Best Regards, > > Pascal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro > Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 > ? : stefano de panfilis > Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Hi all, > > So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and > following discussions: > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that > introducing the above changes is generally agreed. > > There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final > section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe > that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to > this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes > regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the > governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would > actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new > proposed governance structure. > > > Your feedback is welcome. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > ------------- > > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital > > website: www.tid.es > > email: jhierro at tid.es > > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect > > > > You can follow FI-WARE at: > > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu > > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > -- 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 From werner.mohr at nsn.com Thu Jan 31 14:08:01 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:08:01 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Dear Colleagues, from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. Please find in the following some comments: * General comments: o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. o The decision power is now in a board. o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance by the Executive Industry Board. o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly accepted legal changes via Annex II. * Executive Industry Board: o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, which are made by other companies. o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, which are members of the EIB. o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, if companies following them get economic problems. o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. * Program Chair: o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at the Advisory Board. * Project Coordination Group: o The former proposed role basically remains. o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. * Project Management Office: o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of collaborative research. * Project Coordinator: o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his partners, because resources have to come from partners. o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. 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 Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 -----Original Message----- From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure dear jose, i still see some problems in the current text: 1. about the eib the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this should be done under the coordination of the ec. 2. about the pc this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by the pc. 3. about pcg and ag i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. 4. the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the eib meetings. ciao, stefano 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear all > > > > We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, > based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It > is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. > > > > The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as > compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows > > > > > > * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB > (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of > the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented > > * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides > which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. > > * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP > partners" and not by the EIB > > * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to > coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. > The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the > EIB. > > * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to > have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG > decides in case of conflict." > > * The Technical Advisor disappears > > * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has > already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to > clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now > > * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project > Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB > > * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said > that would be decided later. > > > > > > In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject > to the discussions on Monday and your comments > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ > DELGADO > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 > Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they > do not imply major modifications to the document > > > > > > > > Therefore, the proposed changes so far are > > > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be > decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Is my reading correct? > > > > > > I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the > predrafted minutes is > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# > > > > > > BR > > > > De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 > Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal > Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > Importancia: Alta > > > > Dear Jos?, > > Dear Juanjo, > > Dear PCC Colleagues, > > > > Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) > of the new proposed governance. > > > > Best Regards, > > Pascal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro > Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 > ? : stefano de panfilis > Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Hi all, > > So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and > following discussions: > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that > introducing the above changes is generally agreed. > > There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final > section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe > that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to > this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes > regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the > governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would > actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new > proposed governance structure. > > > Your feedback is welcome. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > ------------- > > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital > > website: www.tid.es > > email: jhierro at tid.es > > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect > > > > You can follow FI-WARE at: > > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu > > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > -- 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jan 31 15:03:53 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:03:53 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <510A79C9.8030102@tid.es> Hi, Just a general comment. I believe that you are right in the diagnosis of one major "fundamental" change in the governance structure: the program would become "company-driven" rather than "project-driven". Whether this change is good or not may lead to several interesting discussions. You have raised some concerns, but I guess you agree that no company would like to see how a strategic bet it makes as a company in a project like FI-WARE gets driven by a set of UC "projects". In my opinion, letting the FI-PPP be "project-driven", particularly UC project-driven, implies a lot of issues. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 31/01/13 14:08, Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. > > Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. > > Please find in the following some comments: > > * General comments: > o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. > o The decision power is now in a board. > o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. > The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance > by the Executive Industry Board. > o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model > text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included > in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. > o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, > which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, > partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia > Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly > accepted legal changes via Annex II. > > * Executive Industry Board: > o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as > a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the > overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business > strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme > communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business > related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. > Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, > which are made by other companies. > o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, > which are members of the EIB. > o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, > if companies following them get economic problems. > o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. > > * Program Chair: > o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, > which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. > o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and > the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at > the Advisory Board. > > * Project Coordination Group: > o The former proposed role basically remains. > o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. > > * Project Management Office: > o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB > is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of > collaborative research. > > * Project Coordinator: > o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and > supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his > partners, because resources have to come from partners. > o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company > hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. > o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model > project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which > they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. > > Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. > > 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 > Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel > Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich > Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM > To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > dear jose, > > i still see some problems in the current text: > > 1. about the eib > the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair > based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is > in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is > the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the > decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this > should be done under the coordination of the ec. > > 2. about the pc > this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more > partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as > definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme > under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like > "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two > partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that > affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by > the pc. > > 3. about pcg and ag > i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts > between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. > > > 4. > the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly > > 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and > implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the > eib meetings. > > ciao, > stefano > > 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : >> Dear all >> >> >> >> We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, >> based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It >> is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. >> >> >> >> The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as >> compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows >> >> >> >> >> >> * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB >> (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of >> the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented >> >> * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides >> which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. >> >> * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP >> partners" and not by the EIB >> >> * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to >> coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. >> The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the >> EIB. >> >> * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to >> have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG >> decides in case of conflict." >> >> * The Technical Advisor disappears >> >> * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has >> already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to >> clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now >> >> * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project >> Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB >> >> * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said >> that would be decided later. >> >> >> >> >> >> In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject >> to the discussions on Monday and your comments >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ >> DELGADO >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 >> Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA >> CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they >> do not imply major modifications to the document >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, the proposed changes so far are >> >> >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be >> decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Is my reading correct? >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the >> predrafted minutes is >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# >> >> >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 >> Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO >> CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal >> Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> Importancia: Alta >> >> >> >> Dear Jos?, >> >> Dear Juanjo, >> >> Dear PCC Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) >> of the new proposed governance. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Pascal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro >> Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 >> ? : stefano de panfilis >> Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and >> following discussions: >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that >> introducing the above changes is generally agreed. >> >> There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final >> section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe >> that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to >> this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes >> regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the >> governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would >> actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new >> proposed governance structure. >> >> >> Your feedback is welcome. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- Juanjo >> >> ------------- >> >> Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital >> >> website: www.tid.es >> >> email: jhierro at tid.es >> >> twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro >> >> >> >> FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect >> >> >> >> You can follow FI-WARE at: >> >> website: http://www.fi-ware.eu >> >> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 >> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware >> >> linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace >> situado m?s 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 >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace >> situado m?s 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 >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace >> situado m?s 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fiware-ga mailing list >> Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu >> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga >> > > ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From werner.mohr at nsn.com Thu Jan 31 16:45:10 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:45:10 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <510A79C9.8030102@tid.es> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> <510A79C9.8030102@tid.es> Message-ID: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BB6F@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Dear Juanjo, it is not the question, whether the PPP is company- or UC-project-driven. At the end of the day it is always driven by project partners, who spend resources and who are supporting agreed objectives. I do not agree with your statement that in the newly proposed structure the PPP is driven by companies. The EIB with the described mandate in the new text would be the driving force. It comprises 15 companies out of all FI-PPP partners. There are much more than 15 companies involved in the PPP. Therefore, the reality would be that the PPP would be driven by a subset of companies. That would be fine for strategic guidance for consideration however without decision-making power. This was proposed by the industry task force. The overall text with respect to the description of EIB, PCG and PO makes clear that a top-down decision-making process should be established. The new mandate is going very far: "The Executive Industry Board is responsible for maintaining a dialogue and continuity between the high-level management representatives of the industry participants. The EIB elaborates the strategic and overall steering of the Future Internet PPP in terms strategic choices, the industrial commercialisation/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communications and visibility. In addition, and helps to define the exploitation vision of the FI PPP which is revised every year. In addition, the EIB oversees and supports the business development and other dissemination activities of the FI PPP. tThe EIB and the SB acts as ambassadors for the FI PPP, perform high level communication on the impact of the pProgramme results and communicate with high level EU representatives (Commissioners, MEPs, etc.) and industry boards in order to ensure coherence and impact." The first paragraph is talking about steering. In later parts of the documents decisions of the EIB are mentioned. In addition the part of the sentence " in terms strategic choices, the industrial commercialisation/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP" is directly trying to influence business decisions of project partners. In particular these partners, which are not member of the EIB, would have to follow such decisions without any influence. This is not acceptable. Business-related decisions can only be made by organizations based on their own judgement and discretion and not by others, who not have any accountability for the impact on that organization. Coming back to my example, will Telefonica accept business-related decisions by your competitors in the EIB, if Telefonica would not be in the EIB. This is valid for any other organization. The new description of the Coordinator makes clear that project partners are basically providers of resources without much to say, where and for which tasks the resources should be used. If the coordinator would get executive power to staff and support program activities without asking his partners, we have a serious problem. In reality in FINSENY we supported all these activities after discussed this as coordinator with my partners and then we allocated the resources. Therefore, we have serious concerns. 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 Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 -----Original Message----- From: ext Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:04 PM To: Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: ext stefano de panfilis; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi, Just a general comment. I believe that you are right in the diagnosis of one major "fundamental" change in the governance structure: the program would become "company-driven" rather than "project-driven". Whether this change is good or not may lead to several interesting discussions. You have raised some concerns, but I guess you agree that no company would like to see how a strategic bet it makes as a company in a project like FI-WARE gets driven by a set of UC "projects". In my opinion, letting the FI-PPP be "project-driven", particularly UC project-driven, implies a lot of issues. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 31/01/13 14:08, Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. > > Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. > > Please find in the following some comments: > > * General comments: > o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. > o The decision power is now in a board. > o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. > The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance > by the Executive Industry Board. > o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model > text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included > in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. > o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, > which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, > partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia > Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly > accepted legal changes via Annex II. > > * Executive Industry Board: > o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as > a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the > overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business > strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme > communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business > related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. > Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, > which are made by other companies. > o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, > which are members of the EIB. > o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, > if companies following them get economic problems. > o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. > > * Program Chair: > o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, > which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. > o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and > the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at > the Advisory Board. > > * Project Coordination Group: > o The former proposed role basically remains. > o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. > > * Project Management Office: > o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB > is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of > collaborative research. > > * Project Coordinator: > o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and > supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his > partners, because resources have to come from partners. > o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company > hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. > o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model > project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which > they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. > > Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. > > 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 > Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel > Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich > Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM > To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > dear jose, > > i still see some problems in the current text: > > 1. about the eib > the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair > based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is > in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is > the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the > decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this > should be done under the coordination of the ec. > > 2. about the pc > this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more > partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as > definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme > under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like > "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two > partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that > affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by > the pc. > > 3. about pcg and ag > i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts > between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. > > > 4. > the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly > > 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and > implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the > eib meetings. > > ciao, > stefano > > 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : >> Dear all >> >> >> >> We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, >> based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It >> is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. >> >> >> >> The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as >> compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows >> >> >> >> >> >> * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB >> (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of >> the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented >> >> * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides >> which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. >> >> * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP >> partners" and not by the EIB >> >> * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to >> coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. >> The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the >> EIB. >> >> * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to >> have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG >> decides in case of conflict." >> >> * The Technical Advisor disappears >> >> * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has >> already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to >> clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now >> >> * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project >> Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB >> >> * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said >> that would be decided later. >> >> >> >> >> >> In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject >> to the discussions on Monday and your comments >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de JOSE JIMENEZ >> DELGADO >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 >> Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA >> CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they >> do not imply major modifications to the document >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, the proposed changes so far are >> >> >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be >> decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Is my reading correct? >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the >> predrafted minutes is >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# >> >> >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 >> Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO >> CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal >> Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> Importancia: Alta >> >> >> >> Dear Jos?, >> >> Dear Juanjo, >> >> Dear PCC Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) >> of the new proposed governance. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Pascal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu >> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro >> Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 >> ? : stefano de panfilis >> Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and >> following discussions: >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that >> introducing the above changes is generally agreed. >> >> There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final >> section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe >> that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to >> this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes >> regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the >> governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would >> actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new >> proposed governance structure. >> >> >> Your feedback is welcome. >> >> Best regards, >> >> -- Juanjo >> >> ------------- >> >> Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital >> >> website: www.tid.es >> >> email: jhierro at tid.es >> >> twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro >> >> >> >> FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect >> >> >> >> You can follow FI-WARE at: >> >> website: http://www.fi-ware.eu >> >> facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 >> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware >> >> linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace >> situado m?s 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 >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace >> situado m?s 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 >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar >> nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace >> situado m?s 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fiware-ga mailing list >> Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu >> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga >> > > ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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