[Fiware-oasc-etsi] CIM ISG ToR proposal - results from pre-consultation

[Franck Le Gall]

Dear Lindsay

Many thanks for you efforts. V2 is fine for EGM

Kind regards
Franck

De : Lindsay Frost [mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu]
Envoyé : vendredi 23 septembre 2016 21:26
À : Juanjo Hierro <juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com>; Franck Le Gall <franck.le-gall at eglobalmark.com>; Mulligan, Catherine E A <c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk>
Cc : Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org
Objet : RE: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] CIM ISG ToR proposal - results from pre-consultation

Dear Juanjo and all,
yes the discussions with Hermann and Christoph from ETSI arrived at a new compromise text idea.
Members of this mailing list should agree on the exact wording, see Version 2 below, preferably in the next few days.

What text changes did ETSI want ?

The ETSI constraint is that "yes open source is good, but ETSI must not _exclude_ proprietary solutions".
Therefore it is now proposed that the _requirement_ of showing an open-source implementation is dropped,
however the CIM members can still "take into account" what kind of implementation is demonstrated as
"proof of concept".

Version 1 was quickly drafted online (in blue below):

Work in the CIM ISG will follow an implementation-driven approach, as opposed to a “design by committee” approach, and it will be focused on agile delivery. Members and Participants of the ETSI ISG CIM agree that they have to provide a reference to an implementation (open source or not) of their contributions they can demonstrate so an informed decision can be taken about their acceptance at the time of the final approval of specifications.
Version 2 was updated slightly offline:


Work in the CIM ISG will follow an implementation-driven approach, as opposed to a “design by committee” approach, and it will be focused on agile delivery. Members and Participants of the ETSI ISG CIM agree that they will provide a reference to (open source or proprietary) implementation(s) -- that can be demonstrated and which includes their contribution(s) -- and this information will be taken into account during the approval phase of the final specification.

In both cases the following text was recommended by ETSI for deletion:

Members and Participants of the ETSI ISG CIM agree that, unless they provide a reference to a publicly available open source implementation of their contributions (developed by them or third parties), the corresponding contributions will automatically be withdrawn from the Group Specifications presented to the ISG CIM Members for approval according to section 3.5 of this ToR.

Note that Lindsay was the one who first proposed "automatically withdrawn" in the hope that it would avoid a final phase of intense argument, however now that the criteria for approval are somewhat broadened it is senseless to try for any automatic rule. Deletion is better.

If everyone can agree in the next few days to Version 2 (or propose a version 3) then we can finalize the ToR by the end of the week :-)

best wishes
Lindsay

________________________________________
Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu>     Mobile +49.163.275.1734
NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.

Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014

From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. September 2016 10:40
To: Franck Le Gall; Lindsay Frost; Mulligan, Catherine E A
Cc: Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] CIM ISG ToR proposal - results from pre-consultation




  Yes, there was and I believe we are reaching a conclusion regarding IPRs.

  In a nutshell, the relevant paragraphs will look similar to this:

Group Specifications developed within the ETSI ISG CIM will be public and subject to ETSI IPR policy. In order to maximize the acceptance of the specifications produced, and ease collaboration with open source initiatives supporting the specifications, ETSI ISG CIM Members and Participants agree to declare at the time of making a contribution if they believe that implementing the contribution as a mandatory feature would necessarily infringe on a granted patent or filed patent application of their company. The CIM ISG would then take an informed decision whether to accept the contribution.

Work in the CIM ISG will follow an implementation-driven approach, as opposed to a “design by committee” approach, and it will be focused on agile delivery. Members and Participants of the ETSI ISG CIM agree that they have to provide a reference to an implementation (open source or not) of their contributions they can demonstrate so an informed decision can be taken about their acceptance at the time of the final approval of specifications.

  The text in blue was not final but give you a clue of what kind of language we were discussing.   Linsdsay will come with a proposal that we will discuss first internally and then we will submit to ETSI.  The whole intention is to make sure that contributions to the spec can be implemented and don't come "out of the blue".

  Other than that, I believe that there would not be any hot issue regarding the ToR.   The only point that would remain is the result of this meeting with the OneM2M and SmartM2M teams that I hope will not come with anything that jeopardize the whole thing.

  Lindsay may add if I have missed something.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo



On 22/09/16 09:09, Franck Le Gall wrote:
Hi

Did we get any gotomeeting invitation for this morning  call ?

I do not find any in my mail box

Franck

De : fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org<mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org> [mailto:fiware-oasc-etsi-bounces at lists.fiware.org] De la part de Juanjo Hierro
Envoyé : jeudi 22 septembre 2016 08:50
À : Lindsay Frost <Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu><mailto:Lindsay.Frost at neclab.eu>; Mulligan, Catherine E A <c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk><mailto:c.mulligan at imperial.ac.uk>
Cc : Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>
Objet : Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] CIM ISG ToR proposal - results from pre-consultation


Dear Lindsay,

  I believe that it has came clear through the different mails but, for the avoidance of doubts:

  *   today we are going to meet at 09:00am CET to discuss on remaining IPR issues
  *   next week is going to be for discussion of OneM2M and SmartM2M comments

  Hope it helps,

-- Juanjo

On 21/09/16 09:33, Lindsay Frost wrote:

Dear Juanjo, I have filled in the http://doodle.com/poll/hfcfd4ncybxdgg4e

however it is for Tuesday/Wedndesday/Thursday _next_ week.

Do you still continue planning a call with Hermann on Thursday this week (tomorrow)?



/Lindsay

________________________________________
Dr. Lindsay Frost, Chief Standardization Eng.
frost at neclab.eu<mailto:frost at neclab.eu>     Mobile +49.163.275.1734
NEC Laboratories Europe, Kurfürsten-Anlage 36,
D-69115 Heidelberg, Germany.

Reg. Headoffice: NEC Europe Ltd, VAT DE161569151
Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End Road,
London HA4 6QE, Reg. in England 2832014

From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:juanjose.hierro at telefonica.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 21. September 2016 00:57
To: Hermann Brand; Lindsay Frost; Mulligan, Catherine E A; David Boswarthick; Patrick Guillemin
Cc: Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org<mailto:Fiware-oasc-etsi at lists.fiware.org>; Enrico Scarrone_Internet; Elloumi, Omar (Nokia - FR)
Subject: Re: [Fiware-oasc-etsi] CIM ISG ToR proposal - results from pre-consultation


Dear Hermann, Omar, Enrico,

  Can you share the referred detailed comments?

  I believe it is hard to agree on a face to face meeting, so please setup a doodle for a GoToMeeting (if you can provide a bridge).

  I have setup the following doodle for finding a timeslot that can be suitable for all:

http://doodle.com/poll/hfcfd4ncybxdgg4e

(Selecting a time means you agree to have a confcall that starts at that time and last two hours.  All times are CET)

  After 5 months and several meetings (I remember the one we had in Rome), all this comes as a rather big surprise to me.   Frustrating.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo

On 20/09/16 23:44, Hermann Brand wrote:
Dear all,

We have received detailed comments from Enrico and  Omar representing ETSI SmartM2M and oneM2M. Thank you Enrico and Omar for your analysis and forward-looking proposals.

They recognize that some ambitions driving the proposed ISG CIM work are close to those in smartM2M (SAREF) and also in oneM2M Rel-2, but attempt to envisage a win-win-win-win scenario for ISG CIM, SmartM2M, oneM2M and indeed the European Commission. Their proposal could be taken into consideration by making some modifications in the scope section of the ISG CIM proposal.

We do believe that it is important to share the views first, to see whether these ideas are acceptable from the FIWARE point of view. It would then be quite straight forward to reword some parts of the scope section.



An email discussion is not the best tool to serve this purpose and we believe that a meeting would be needed.

Would you be available for a meeting, ideally face-to-face, at least by conference call/ goToMeeting?

If so would you please indicate who would be involved and their availabilities?

Best regards,
Hermann
PS: Should be a separate meeting/call. Can’t all be dealt with on Thursday, 10h CEST



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-oasc-etsi/attachments/20160925/f87167a4/attachment.html>