dear juanjo, i do not like the tone of david nor his attitude to be the leder of everything: simply he is not! in addition i do not like the statement about the ab to be more proactive, because this is already the case. the fact that the sb is not efficient, does not mean at all the programme is not progressing well (which actually is not the case, or at least only very partially true ....) simply it means the sb, and concord above all, are not performing well. changing this reality is unfair and absolutely missleading! cioa, stefano 2013/3/7 Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es> > > FYI > > -- 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) Coordinator > and 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 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-PPP Phase 2 RE: Urgent: > New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 > 16:23:33 +0000 From: David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><kennedy at eurescom.eu> To: > FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu > <FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu><FI-PPP-Phase-2-Contacts at future-internet.eu>, > Hierro Sureda Juan José <jhierro at tid.es> <jhierro at tid.es>, lgg at tid.es > <lgg at tid.es> <lgg at tid.es>, livdo at tid.es <livdo at tid.es> <livdo at tid.es>, > Federico Álvarez (federico.alvarez at upm.es) <federico.alvarez at upm.es><federico.alvarez at upm.es>, > Jacques Magen (InterInnov) (jmagen at interinnov.com) <jmagen at interinnov.com><jmagen at interinnov.com> CC: > burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com <burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com><burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com>, > michael.stollberg at sap.com <michael.stollberg at sap.com><michael.stollberg at sap.com>, > rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com <rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com><rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com>, > Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl <Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl> <Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl>, > elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de <elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de><elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de>, > armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de <armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de><armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de>, > claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de <claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de><claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de>, > laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de <laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de><laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de>, > SUZANNE at il.ibm.com <SUZANNE at il.ibm.com> <SUZANNE at il.ibm.com>, > Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu <Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu><Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu>, > beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com <beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com><beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com>, > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de <Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de><Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de>, > GALITL at il.ibm.com <GALITL at il.ibm.com> <GALITL at il.ibm.com>, > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com <irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com><irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com>, > jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com <jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com><jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com>, > lucile.casenave at cea.fr <lucile.casenave at cea.fr> <lucile.casenave at cea.fr>, > Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com <Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com><Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com>, > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com <robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com><robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com>, > Sarrazin Robert <robert.sarrazin at orange.com> <robert.sarrazin at orange.com>, > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com <patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com><patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com>, > Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu><Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, > Fatelnig Peter <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, > Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>, > 'Macmahon, Tara' <tara.macmahon at intel.com> <tara.macmahon at intel.com>, > fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de <fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de><fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de>, > kathrin.schweppe at sap.com <kathrin.schweppe at sap.com><kathrin.schweppe at sap.com> > > Hi All, > > > > To avoid multiple parallel paths in this discussion I would really > appreciate if you gave you feedback through your projects as I simply don’t > know to which projects each of you belongs. To ensure a little more > clarify on this discussion I will give a quick outline of the background > and status. But then please work through the projects. > > > > We are in this discussion as, at the negotiation meeting of the Phase 2 > projects of the FI-PPP, the commission presented a text which they want to > include in the DoW of the FI-PPP projects. We entered into a discussion > with them to try and better align the text with the Collaboration > Agreement, while recognising that visible improvements of the FI-PPP > management were required. The programme reviews identifying the need for > improvement are pubic documents. The commission agreed to have this > discussion with us on the basis we supported some improvements. > > > > To close a point that comes up often: please understand that the > commission will not accept any statements saying the Collaboration > Agreement rules over the Frame Agreement as they are not party to the > Collaboration Agreement. > > > > Having said that, FI-Ware is leading a discussion on having a suitable > reference to the Collaboration Agreement in the text and we have included > the Collaboration Agreement lists of SB and AB responsibilities in revision > 5 to ensure alignment. The commission are willing to acknowledge and > respect the existence of the CA. > > > > On resources: The new projects in phase 2 are being asked to allocate > resources to the programme level working groups in their DoWs – this is > part of their negotiation. On-going FI-PPP projects will implement > amendments in due course and the commission expects them to make similar > allocations when doing their amendments. Like all amendments, the project > participants will negotiate and agree whatever changes are necessary with > their project officers and revise their DoW accordingly. We don’t need to > repeat in the text that the changes in any project amendment need to be > agreed with the project participants as this is how such changes are made. > > > > The level of resources for programme activities are to be handled > individually with the projects and, in the case of on-going projects, it is > expected some resources are already allocated to programme activities so > the discussion will simply be if this is sufficient. The statements in the > text are upper limits to protect us from the programme level requirements > exploding. > > > > The roles of specific organisational bodies are highlighted intentionally > as the purpose of the whole action is to strengthen the commitment of the > projects to the FI-PPP governance structure. The visibility of these roles > is key to improving the performance. The changes proposed are because the > reviews identified these weaknesses. > > > > For example: the programme chair *responsibility to ensure the overall > management of the program is effective and functioning as required *is > actually the same responsibility all participants have. Collectively we > must make sure the programme is working and, while we may have a figurehead > with the nominal responsibility, we all need to be proactive to ensure it > works well. The Steering board was particularly identified as weak – maybe > we need to clarify in section 3.2 that it approves the *COMMON*milestones for the projects (as described in the CA) - but it cannot be > passive if the inter-project activities are not progressing. Same for the > AB - it has to be seen to be more proactive. Having said this, the > collaboration agreement frequently repeats the caveats about how decisions > of the SB and AB involving resources are treated by the projects and the > Collaboration Agreement is still every bit as valid as it was in phase 1. > > > > > I accepted this action to progress the text on Governance on the basis > that the highlighting of the some of the interworking requirements and > improving the effectiveness of parts of the structure are fully in the > spirit of the programme and the collaboration agreement. I also understood > that visible changes are necessary because of the poor reviews and the poor > performance of some of the programme elements in phase 1. The main > challenge was to see if we could implement such improvements without > needing to amend the CA. I believe we are getting there thanks to the > inputs received to date. > > > > However, if you believe that the minimal changes in emphasis proposed > require a change in the Collaboration Agreement then the Steering board has > the responsibility (as described in the CA) to propose the amendment or > addendum necessary. > > > > Revision 5 of the Governance text elaborates a number of points on how the > structures of the FI-PPP, as created in phase 1, can be tuned to be a > little more effective in phase 2. It has been a constructive – if > sometimes difficult - discussion to get to revision 5 and hopefully we can > end this discussion soon and get on with the work. > > > > As requested above, please understand that improvements are necessary and > assist your project leaders to get these implemented as efficiently as > possible. > > > > Thanks for your support on this, > > > > David > > > > > > David Kennedy > > Director > > Eurescom GmbH > > Wieblinger Weg 19/4 > > D-69123 Heidelberg > > Germany > > > > Phone: +49 6221 989 122 > > Mobile: +49 171 286 1753 > > > > EURESCOM: Innovation through Collaboration > > > > EURESCOM – European Institute for Research and Strategic Studies in > Telecommunications GmbH. > Wieblinger Weg 19/4, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany. > Geschäftsführer (Director) David M. Kennedy. > Vorsitzender der Gesellschafterversammlung (Chairman General Assembly) > Paul Jenkins. > Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 334410. > Deutsche Bank Heidelberg, IBAN: DE47 6727 0003 0017 1330 00, BIC > (SWIFT-CODE): DEUTDE SM672. > VAT Nr. DE 143457825 > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Macmahon, Tara [mailto:tara.macmahon at intel.com<tara.macmahon at intel.com>] > > *Sent:* 07 March 2013 15:19 > *To:* fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de; kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > *Cc:* David Kennedy; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; > michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; > Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; > armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; > laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; > Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; Sarrazin Robert; "Essi Heinanen > _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > *Subject:* RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > Hi all > > > > Thanks to everyone for keeping us up-to-date on discussions around this. > > > > *1. **We would not agree with the statement on the last page that > “all of the structures outlined above are in line with the principles and > definitions of the current Collaboration Agreement”. *We agree with > IBM’s comments of 11 February, that a sentence is needed in the document > that states: *"In the event of any conflict between this text and the > Collaboration Agreement provisions, the Collaboration Agreement provisions > shall apply."*** > > * * > > *2. **We would not agree that the document could be included in the > DOWs of the current live projects. Eg, t**here are a number of statements > requiring existing projects to re-allocate resources/make resources > available for programme-level activities. *We agree with Fraunhofer’s > comments of Tuesday, that additional activities/resourcing requirements > cannot be carried out with the existing funding. Instead, we suggest text > be included in the document along the lines:** > > § *“For existing projects, the consortium members will agree, in > accordance with the terms of their Consortium Agreement terms how resources > can be allocated/re-allocated for the programme-level activities envisaged > in this document, it being always recognised that.** for existing > projects, no consortium partner can be required to make additional > resources available without its written agreement, and that any > re-allocation of budget or resources from any particular work activity/ > consortium partner can only be made with the agreement of that consortium > partner, and that partner’s work scope/work activity will need to be > varied/reduced accordingly”* > > * * > > *3. **The document needs to be clearer around what resources need > to be made available – eg: statements that need to be clarified:* > > o * “The projects must allocate resources to the working groups defined > in this section in their project contract DOWs”* (see Section 3.2 > (Steering Board), para 3) > > o *“The individual projects commit to reserve reasonable funds and > allocate staff for each working group within their respective work plans…” > * (see Section 3.5 (Working Groups), last bullet under “Operational > Aspects”). > > > > *4. **Some of the bodies seem to be given greater roles. We agree > with the changes requested by IBM around these in their comments of 11 > February – eg:* > > o *The Programme Chair* should not have *“the responsibility to ensure > the overall management of the program is effective and functioning as > required”*(para 3.1) . Sentence to be deleted. > > o *The Steering Board *should not “approve” the overall coordination > among the projects. It should only “supervise and review” (Section 3.2 > (Steering Board), para 5). > > o *Architecture Board: *See changes requested by IBM at Section 3.3. > > * * > > *5. **I can no longer see any potential impact on IP terms, but > please let me know if I’m incorrect?* > > * * > > > > Best regards > > > > Tara > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de [ > mailto:fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de <fabian.perpeet at zv.fraunhofer.de>] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:37 PM > To: kathrin.schweppe at sap.com > Cc: kennedy at eurescom.eu; burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com; > michael.stollberg at sap.com; rod.franklin at kuehne-nagel.com; > Sjaak.Wolfert at wur.nl; elke.rupp at zv.fraunhofer.de; > armin.dietrich at zv.fraunhofer.de; claudia.manderfeld at zv.fraunhofer.de; > laura.schuetz at izb.fraunhofer.de; SUZANNE at il.ibm.com; > Barbara.Gromer at neclab.eu; beatriz.aznar at atosorigin.com; > Bjoern.Hohmann at telekom.de; GALITL at il.ibm.com; > irene.glueck-otte at siemens.com; jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com; > lucile.casenave at cea.fr; Mathilde.dubesset at technicolor.com; > robert.sarrazin at orange-ftgroup.com; robert.sarrazin at orange.com; Macmahon, > Tara; "Essi Heinanen _essi.heinanen"@tivit.fi; > patricia.bedoui at thalesgroup.com; lgg at tid.es > Subject: RE: Urgent: New proposed governance structure - IMPORTANT > > > > Dear Kathrin, > > just one clarifying remark to my question in my first mail from today: If > the Commission intends to modify the DoW by implementing the new governance > structure also for running projects it has to be clear that the additional > activities due to the new structure require additional funding as the > existing projects have been calculated in accordance with the DoW's at the > time when the project proposals were submitted. Additional activities > cannot be carried out with the original funding. > > Best regards > > Fabian Perpeet > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Ireland Limited (Branch) > Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland > Registered Number: E902934 > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > https://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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130308/69abc24a/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy