[Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4

[Juanjo Hierro]

Hi all,

  Here it goes the reaction of David Kennedy to my response to his comments.

  Telefonica believes that what David proposes is ok and can be accepted as formula to accommodate to the changes we proposed in the first place.

  As I have told David, the solution he proposes are ok but I wanted to double-check with the rest of the FI-WARE partners before giving a definitive answer.

  So then you have to answer to the following question ... would you agree that the solutions proposed by David are ok to close the comments we made on this two matters ?

  If I don't hear of any objection by EOB today, I will presume it is ok to you.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4
Date:   Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:16:47 +0100
From:   Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To:     David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>
CC:     Fatelnig Peter <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu"<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>, "Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu"<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu> <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Lakaniemi Ilkka <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi><mailto:ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>


On 07/03/13 13:23, David Kennedy wrote:
Hi Juanjo,

ITEM  1: AB responsibilities – OK we are at cross purposes here.  I understood you wanted to change the text were we quote the CA and this I did not want to do as I would be attacked for not quoting it correctly.

However, if you mean simply add these clarifications to the AB role  - I think we can do this.

I propose we add two Bullet points in section 3.3 under operation:

·         continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program,  evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical divergence, including for example: how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by the UC projects,

·         analyse the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be carried out in the Standardization Working Group

and we simply don’t insist they are 100% aligned with the CA text in annex 1.
  That should be fine.


ITEM 2: PrC  -  I think you have found the middle ground here except for the use of recommendation.  If I can rearrange it slightly for better readability I would propose to keep the link to the SB agenda so people cannot say they don’t know what the issues they are asked to consider are.
(NOTE:  what I saw this week as an agenda for the SB needs dramatic improvement – a clear agenda would help solve a lot of problems here !!!):

"PrCs, and other project representatives, should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their respective projects according to their internally defined procedures, involving all project partners prior to the SB meeting, in order to get the necessary mandate to discuss, negotiate and decide about the SB agenda items.

  That should be fine as well

The CA contains enough about handling SB decisions – particularly when resources are impacted - so this is covered.  As you were concerned earlier, this might imply that we are unable to handle new issues on the fly but I think these things will work better in practice when the team is used to working together.

  I also hope so :-)


Would this cover your requirements?

  In my opinion, yes.    But let me share this with the rest of FI-WARE prior to give you a final answer.   Nevertheless, sure this is better than what we had before so I would even go implementing the proposed changes to move fast.

  Cheers,

-- Juanjo


David



From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es]
Sent: 07 March 2013 12:13
To: David Kennedy
Cc: Fatelnig Peter; Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>; Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>; Lakaniemi Ilkka; Hierro Sureda Juan José
Subject: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4

On 05/03/13 09:39, David Kennedy wrote:


  *   Given said the above, clarifications or further development of the description of some tasks may be feasible.   Indeed, we propose to further develop/refine the following tasks assigned to the AB in the Collaboration Agreement:

     *   task: "continuously monitor the technical progress of the FII Program, evaluate alignment and recommend corrective actions in case of technical divergence" in the CA --> We propose to copy the description but add the following sentence: "As an example, continuously monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects."
     *   task: ""
It is more than my life is worth to modify terms when we are trying to ensure alignment with the CA.  This would just cause arguments.

  Sorry but this solution doesn't work for us.   Making it clear that the AB will monitor how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects is key.   Actually, we want to make it clear this is a concrete task part of the monitoring of technical progress.   Indeed one of the most important tasks carried out by the AB.

  Regarding the task on standardization, what we just try is to refine what is in the Collaboration Agreement to make it clear what the AB will do that is in line with the CA but also in line with creation of the Standardization WG.   Adding a point like: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII Project or the Steering Board and issue recommendations for FII Program level standardization activities to be handle by the Standardization Working Group" helps to make things nicely coexist.




  *   Regarding mandate of Project Coordinators as described in section 4.2, particularly the paragraph saying: "PrCs have the responsibility to discuss proposals for SB decisions in their project in good time and to get the mandate from their consortium to to discuss, negotiate and decide on the SB agenda items.".   We propose to replace it by "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to the processes laid down in the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal procedures involving all project partners and get the necessary mandate, together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium, to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB"

NO – this would somehow put the collaboration agreement over the DoW and the commission will never accept this.  And the SB allows for SB decisions so we don’t need to hide behind recommendations.


  If the issue is mentioning to the Collaboration Agreement, you may just say "PrCs should discuss the proposals for the SB decisions in their project according to their internally defined procedures involving all project partners in order to get the necessary mandate, together with the second representative of the sending FII project consortium, to discuss, negotiate and decide about the content of the respective recommendation of the SB".

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo

________________________________

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130307/dd60450e/attachment.html>