Dear Juanjo,
Still waiting for feedback from our legal department, but here is a short
comment for now.
Current FI-WARE DoW defers to PPP Collaboration Agreement regarding
everything related to cross-project governance:
Section B.2.1.2.1 Architecture Board (ARB): "The programme collaboration
agreement will define the mandate, tasks and composition of the
Architecture Board in more detail", and similarly for SB, ADB, WGs in the
following sections.
Section B.2.1.2.5 General provisions: "The programme collaboration
agreement further elaborates on the definitions, mandates and operational
rules of every element of the governance structure. Their application
shall be binding for FI-WARE".
This does not contradict the fact that DoW generally prevails over
Collaboration Agreement. But if the new governance details are added to
DoW directly, we will have two places addressing the same set of issues,
and it will be a nightmare to understand what is going on (even knowing
that one of them prevails over the other).
How this ambiguity is going to be resolved? Is the new governance document
going to override (and make obsolete) the entire Article 3 of the
Collaboration Agreement (12 pages)? If this is the suggested approach -- I
think it should be clear to everyone. Then, it might make sense to copy
everything currently described there to the new document (with necessary
adjustments), explicitly stating that this replaces Article 3 of the
Collaboration Agreement (or something like that -- I am not a lawyer..).
Regards,
Alex
====================================================================================================
Alex Glikson
Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab
http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html |
http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml
Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile:
+972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112
From: "Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)" <werner.mohr at nsn.com>
To: ext Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es>, "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu"
<fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu>, "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu"
<fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
Date: 08/03/2013 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2
Revision 4
Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
Dear Juanjo,
I have one comment on the following text:
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.
Comment Werner:
· The Steering Board has no decision power and can also not get
such decision power on its own. The feedback from the consortia is
essential and the coordinator has to act based on the support of his
consortium.
· I understand that the Collaboration Agreement is lower in the
hierarchy of documents and is below the Grant Agreement. It would make
sense to remove the hint to the Collaboration Agreement.
· However, we have to consider Annex II, Article II.2: (Peter
explained in his mail that Annex II is overwriting Annex I and therefore
Annex II has to be respected by all stakeholders)
II.2. Organisation of the consortium and role of coordinator
1. All the beneficiaries together form the consortium, whether or not
they enter into a separate written consortium agreement. Beneficiaries are
represented towards the Commission by the coordinator, who shall be the
intermediary for any communication between the Commission and any
beneficiary, with the exceptions foreseen in this grant agreement.
2. The financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] to the project
shall be paid to the coordinator who receives it on behalf of the
beneficiaries. The payment of the financial contribution of [the Union]
[Euratom] to the coordinator discharges the Commission from its obligation
on payments.
3. The coordinator shall:
a) administer the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom]
regarding its allocation between beneficiaries and activities, in
accordance with this grant agreement and the decisions taken by the
consortium. The coordinator shall ensure that all the appropriate payments
are made to the other beneficiaries without unjustified delay;
b) keep the records and financial accounts making it possible to
determine at any time what portion of the financial contribution of [the
Union] [Euratom] has been paid to each beneficiary for the purposes of the
project;
c) inform the Commission of the distribution of the financial
contribution of [the Union] [Euratom] and the date of transfers to the
beneficiaries, when required by this grant agreement or by the Commission;
d) d) review the reports to verify consistency with the project tasks
before transmitting them to the Commission;
e) monitor the compliance by beneficiaries with their obligations
under this grant agreement.
The coordinator may not subcontract the above-mentioned tasks.
4. Beneficiaries shall fulfil the following obligations as a
consortium:
a) provide all detailed data requested by the Commission for the
purposes of the proper administration of this project;
b) carry out the project jointly and severally vis-à-vis [the Union]
[Euratom], taking all necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that the
project is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
grant agreement.
c) make appropriate internal arrangements consistent with the
provisions of this grant agreement to ensure the efficient implementation
of the project. When provided for in Article 1.4 these internal
arrangements shall take the form of a written consortium agreement (the "
consortium agreement"). The consortium agreement governs inter alia the
following:
i. the
internal organisation of the consortium including the decision making
procedures;
ii. rules
on dissemination and use, and access rights;
iii. the
distribution of the financial contribution of [the Union] [Euratom];
iv. the
settlement of internal disputes, including cases of abuse of power;
v. liability,
indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries
.
d) engage, whenever appropriate, with actors beyond the research
community and with the public in order to foster dialogue and debate on
the research agenda, on research results and on related scientific issues
with policy makers and civil society; create synergies with education at
all levels and conduct activities promoting the socioeconomic impact of
the research.
e) allow the Commission to take part in meetings concerning the
project.
· According to Annex II the coordinator has an administrative
role.
· The heavily debated word ?monitor? is coming from Annex II and
not from the Collaboration Agreement.
Best regards,
Werner
Dr. Werner Mohr
Head of Research Alliances
Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH
CEF T&S IE Research Alliances
St. Martin Strasse 76
81541 Munich
Germany
Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117
Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121
Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788
e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com
Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081
From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [
mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 12:21 PM
To: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4
Hi all,
Find enclosed a first reaction on the response to our comments sent by
David Kennedy. Since time is moving fast, I take the risk of sending
this response although we didn't have to discuss them first internally.
However, I feel confident it would be fine because I was essentially
claiming that we don't accept the rejection of some of our comments.
Regarding rejection of our comment on the role of the PrC, I believe
that I had to "neutralize" the argument that the proposed text was not
valid because it was referring to the Collaboration Agreement. Then I
have just suggested to replace "according to the processes laid down in
the Collaboration Agreement and the individual projects' internal
procedures" by "according to their internally defined procedures" which,
at the end of the day, is the same.
I hope you agree. Otherwise, let me know and I will send the necessary
amendment.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Revision 4
Date:
Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:12:53 +0100
From:
Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es>
To:
David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu>
CC:
Fatelnig Peter <peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>,
"Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>,
"Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu" <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, Lakaniemi
Ilkka <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\""
<jhierro at tid.es>
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: "analyze the standardization activities identified by any FII
Project or the Steering Board, issue recommendations for FII Program level
standardization activities" in the CA --> We propose to add "carried out
in the Standardization Working Group"
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
_______________________________________________
Fiware-pcc mailing list
Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu
https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ga/attachments/20130308/6a8c3145/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy