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 <jimenez at tid.es>: > 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: miércoles, 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: miércoles, 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 José, > > 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 > Envoyé : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 > À : 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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace > situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > > > ________________________________ > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace > situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace > situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > 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
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy