From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jul 4 08:03:08 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 08:03:08 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Wed Jul 4 09:46:59 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:46:59 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: Good idea. One more topic to consider: Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration Status of deliverables due by end of June Legal Aspects Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mcp at tid.es Wed Jul 4 09:54:55 2012 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 09:54:55 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC In-Reply-To: References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <4FF3F6CF.3040702@tid.es> and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jul 4 10:25:35 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:25:35 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <4FF3F6CF.3040702@tid.es> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF3F6CF.3040702@tid.es> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA3F@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jul 4 11:50:02 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:50:02 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA3F@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF3F6CF.3040702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA3F@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA4B@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Jul 4 15:37:49 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:37:49 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <4FF4472D.5030409@tid.es> Hi, I confess I'm a bit astonished when I find some people mark their availability on Monday 11:00-13:00 which is a timeslot they know that the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall takes place. Stefano, BTW, did you take into account that on 11 and 12 we are in Viena, attending the FI-PPP AB meeting ? :-) Cheers, -- 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 On 04/07/12 08:03, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From ste.depanfilis at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 16:03:10 2012 From: ste.depanfilis at gmail.com (ste.depanfilis at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 14:03:10 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <4FF4472D.5030409@tid.es> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF4472D.5030409@tid.es> Message-ID: <48058899-1341410312-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-239544915-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> Dear Juanjo, As i firmly believe we need also pcc meeting, in particular, to plan next period and m18 review, i gave my availaility. Btw i have two replacements for the wpl/wpa so continuity is assured. Concerning vienna as i anticipated you i cannot attend due to previous engagements. From the tel aviv one i'll not miss ab meetings any longer. In fact, the ab meetings were agreed before i joined the ab and i had some engagements already fixed and not all of them i succeeded to move or skip. Ciao Stefano Le mail ti raggiungono ovunque con BlackBerry? from Vodafone! -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro Sender: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:37:49 To: Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jul 5 09:32:30 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:32:30 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA4B@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C743D@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF3F6CF.3040702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA3F@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA4B@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear all It seems difficult to find a slot for the meeting I have made a new version of the doodle with a finer resolution and including the option "if needed be" Please try to answer again http://www.doodle.com/upy8hcdga3qtiyb3 BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jul 5 17:15:42 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:15:42 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-WARE: change of unit and financial officers In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D0576D8@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D0576D8@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <4FF5AF9E.3080409@tid.es> Nothing rather relevant, but just to keep you informed -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE: change of unit and financial officers Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:52:14 +0000 From: To: , , , CC: , , , , Dear all, Please be informed that FI-WARE has been transferred to unit CNECT-E3 "Net Innovation", with Head of Unit Jesus Villasante, as of July 1. I am still the responsible Project Officer. For financial/contact matters, please contact Stephane Andries and Gaelle Lanckmans (back-up) from now on. Best regards, Arian. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Sun Jul 8 21:27:26 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 21:27:26 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> Hi, I haven't seen enough FI-WARE PCC members casting their vote in the poll setup by Jose ... Please do so ... I assume it might be a little bit tight now for this Monday, but maybe it's feasible for this Tuesday ... or another day. But we need to achieve enough quorum ... Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:32:30 +0200 From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Dear all It seems difficult to find a slot for the meeting I have made a new version of the doodle with a finer resolution and including the option "if needed be" Please try to answer again http://www.doodle.com/upy8hcdga3qtiyb3 BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc From jimenez at tid.es Mon Jul 9 08:40:35 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:40:35 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Dear all Seeing how the poll is developing, my suggestion would be next Tuesday at 11.00 CET. Otherwise we move into vacation period. I am asking for the meeting in the calendar, because we cannot wait too much. BR From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: domingo, 08 de julio de 2012 21:27 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Hi, I haven't seen enough FI-WARE PCC members casting their vote in the poll setup by Jose ... Please do so ... I assume it might be a little bit tight now for this Monday, but maybe it's feasible for this Tuesday ... or another day. But we need to achieve enough quorum ... Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:32:30 +0200 From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Dear all It seems difficult to find a slot for the meeting I have made a new version of the doodle with a finer resolution and including the option "if needed be" Please try to answer again http://www.doodle.com/upy8hcdga3qtiyb3 BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From ste.depanfilis at gmail.com Mon Jul 9 09:36:00 2012 From: ste.depanfilis at gmail.com (ste.depanfilis at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:36:00 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Re: URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <2007501135-1341819075-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2008881890-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> Dear Jose, At that time tomorrow i'm in a plane so impossible for me to attend. Ciao Stefano Le mail ti raggiungono ovunque con BlackBerry? from Vodafone! -----Original Message----- From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sender: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:40:35 To: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc From axel.fasse at sap.com Mon Jul 9 09:50:48 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:50:48 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361665E8305@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Jose, tomorrow at 11:00, I am in a partner-meeting (with external partners from 10-16)) to promote the usage of FI-WARE technologies and concepts. Because of this partner meeting, it would be nearly impossible to join your call. Would it be possible to find another timeslot? Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: Montag, 9. Juli 2012 08:41 To: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Dear all Seeing how the poll is developing, my suggestion would be next Tuesday at 11.00 CET. Otherwise we move into vacation period. I am asking for the meeting in the calendar, because we cannot wait too much. BR From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: domingo, 08 de julio de 2012 21:27 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Hi, I haven't seen enough FI-WARE PCC members casting their vote in the poll setup by Jose ... Please do so ... I assume it might be a little bit tight now for this Monday, but maybe it's feasible for this Tuesday ... or another day. But we need to achieve enough quorum ... Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:32:30 +0200 From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Dear all It seems difficult to find a slot for the meeting I have made a new version of the doodle with a finer resolution and including the option "if needed be" Please try to answer again http://www.doodle.com/upy8hcdga3qtiyb3 BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Jul 9 09:54:06 2012 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 09:54:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: <11175_1341820450_4FFA8E22_11175_11411_1_2b79d69e-a456-4eba-a8cf-5ae17a5fd04b@THSONEA01HUB06P.one.grp> Dear Jos?, Following email from Juanjo I do suspect more cast will come. So I would suggest to wait and to select for a our next virtual pcc-meeting a date where the quorum would have been reached. Hope you can share. 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 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : lundi 9 juillet 2012 08:41 ? : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Dear all Seeing how the poll is developing, my suggestion would be next Tuesday at 11.00 CET. Otherwise we move into vacation period. I am asking for the meeting in the calendar, because we cannot wait too much. BR From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: domingo, 08 de julio de 2012 21:27 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Hi, I haven't seen enough FI-WARE PCC members casting their vote in the poll setup by Jose ... Please do so ... I assume it might be a little bit tight now for this Monday, but maybe it's feasible for this Tuesday ... or another day. But we need to achieve enough quorum ... Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:32:30 +0200 From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Dear all It seems difficult to find a slot for the meeting I have made a new version of the doodle with a finer resolution and including the option "if needed be" Please try to answer again http://www.doodle.com/upy8hcdga3qtiyb3 BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Mon Jul 9 10:03:55 2012 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 10:03:55 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Re: URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <2007501135-1341819075-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2008881890-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <2007501135-1341819075-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2008881890-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9AE87668@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Tomorrow at that time I will be in a meeting in Brussels and will be totally impossible for me to attend. Any day in the week between Wednesday and Friday would be much better for me cause I can manage to change other appointments.? Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission ?? T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net? ? ? -----Original Message----- From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ste.depanfilis at gmail.com Sent: lunes, 09 de julio de 2012 9:36 To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu; Juanjo Hierro; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Re: URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Dear Jose, At that time tomorrow i'm in a plane so impossible for me to attend. Ciao Stefano Le mail ti raggiungono ovunque con BlackBerry? from Vodafone! -----Original Message----- From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sender: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 08:40:35 To: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ From jimenez at tid.es Mon Jul 9 10:50:42 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 10:50:42 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC In-Reply-To: <11175_1341820450_4FFA8E22_11175_11411_1_2b79d69e-a456-4eba-a8cf-5ae17a5fd04b@THSONEA01HUB06P.one.grp> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA63@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <4FF9DF1E.2000702@tid.es> <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7762@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> <11175_1341820450_4FFA8E22_11175_11411_1_2b79d69e-a456-4eba-a8cf-5ae17a5fd04b@THSONEA01HUB06P.one.grp> Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CA93@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Thank you Paqscal I agree. We shall see what the responses are. Thank you for answering the doodle BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: lunes, 09 de julio de 2012 9:54 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: BISSON Pascal; SIEUX Corinne Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Dear Jos?, Following email from Juanjo I do suspect more cast will come. So I would suggest to wait and to select for a our next virtual pcc-meeting a date where the quorum would have been reached. Hope you can share. 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 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Envoy? : lundi 9 juillet 2012 08:41 ? : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Dear all Seeing how the poll is developing, my suggestion would be next Tuesday at 11.00 CET. Otherwise we move into vacation period. I am asking for the meeting in the calendar, because we cannot wait too much. BR From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: domingo, 08 de julio de 2012 21:27 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT REMINDER Fwd: Re: next audio PCC Hi, I haven't seen enough FI-WARE PCC members casting their vote in the poll setup by Jose ... Please do so ... I assume it might be a little bit tight now for this Monday, but maybe it's feasible for this Tuesday ... or another day. But we need to achieve enough quorum ... Cheers, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:32:30 +0200 From: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' Dear all It seems difficult to find a slot for the meeting I have made a new version of the doodle with a finer resolution and including the option "if needed be" Please try to answer again http://www.doodle.com/upy8hcdga3qtiyb3 BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 11:50 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Dear all I have already prepared the draft minutes (empty of course) Please feel free to go there and include or modify discussion items https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit BR ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 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: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 10:26 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Proposed agenda so far * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * Standardization Plan and Report * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) * approach to M18 review * AOB ---- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D jimenez at tid.es tf +34 91 4832660 De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Miguel Carrillo Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 04 de julio de 2012 9:55 Para: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC and "Standardization Plan and Report" El 04/07/2012 9:46, Alex Glikson escribi?: Good idea. One more topic to consider: * Status of deliverables due by end of July (testbed, white paper) It would be also good to start discussing our approach to M18 review (e.g., if we need demo's for each chapter -- we need to start thinking of a plan to achieve it) -- but this can probably wait few weeks. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO To: "'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu'" , Date: 04/07/2012 09:08 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] next audio PCC Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Dear All It would be a good idea to have a formal PCC to discuss the latest developments. My proposed agenda would be * Revision of items to be included in DoW amendment under elaboration * Status of deliverables due by end of June * Legal Aspects * Future Actions. Meeting of CEOs * AOB Please, include any other ?tem you consider relevant As usual, we can use We'll use powwownow. PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall use google to take the notes, as usual I have prepared the corresponding doodle. Please indicate your preferences http://www.doodle.com/pei6wiffx2xt2z86 BR --- Jose Jimenez Telefonica I+D (34) 91 482 2660 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jimenez at tid.es Mon Jul 9 19:25:34 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:25:34 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Pcc meeting Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7887@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> When: martes, 10 de julio de 2012 11:00-13:00 (UTC+01:00) Bruselas, Copenhague, Madrid, Par?s. Where: audio conference Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* See details (please include more info if needed) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2211 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Tue Jul 10 00:23:15 2012 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:23:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Pcc meeting In-Reply-To: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7887@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> References: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB83C7887@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Message-ID: dear jose, i'm sure there were better choices (this way nor nuria, nor axel, and nor me can attend ...) btw, i confirm i cannot attend, matteo will attend in my behalf. ciao, stefano 2012/7/9 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > When: martes, 10 de julio de 2012 11:00-13:00 (UTC+01:00) Bruselas, > Copenhague, Madrid, Par?s. > Where: audio conference > > Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time > adjustments. > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > See details (please include more info if needed) > > * > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit > * > > > * ________________________________ * > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s 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 > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc > > -- 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: From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jul 10 08:42:16 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:42:16 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Cancelada: Pcc meeting Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CAA1@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Cu?ndo: martes, 10 de julio de 2012 11:00-13:00 (GMT+01:00) Bruselas, Copenhague, Madrid, Par?s. D?nde: audio conference *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* See details (please include more info if needed) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2283 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jul 10 13:11:52 2012 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:11:52 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] audio PCC Message-ID: <0986BE7EB220D848BEF7ADDF53B634196AB843CAAE@EXCLU2K7.hi.inet> Cu?ndo: lunes, 16 de julio de 2012 9:00-11:00 (GMT+01:00) Bruselas, Copenhague, Madrid, Par?s. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* See details https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Tpzq9Jhhulme86lRGTElUzhSUfx64S6p9cq5Nn9br0I/edit?pli=1 We know Axel will have some difficulties for the first 30 minutes. We?ll try to recap him when he joins in Also we know Thierry cannot attend We would suggest you either send a representative. Alternatively you could send your input to the important decisions, particularly those related to the reject of effort to partners not complying, changes in funding, legal aspects This applies to everybody, if you would like to state your input in the document, it will make the meeting faster Best ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2587 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jul 16 08:42:23 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:42:23 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Updated link to FI-WARE PCC shared minutes and bridge details Message-ID: <5003B7CF.60608@tid.es> Hi all, Please use the following link to the FI-WARE PCC shared minutes instead of the one that Jose Jimenez sent to you the first time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit Besides, just let you know that we will use the same powwownow bridge as with the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall, i.e.: * PIN: 050662. Local dial-in phone numbers at: * http://pdf.powwownow.com/pdf/USA_en_pwn-dial-in-numbers.pdf We shall start at 09:15am. Sorry for the bit delay. Cheers, -- 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Jul 16 09:11:18 2012 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:11:18 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] axel and me are on line!!! Message-ID: ciao, stefano -- 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: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Mon Jul 16 11:58:47 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:58:47 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] DoW amendment proposal Message-ID: Few comments regarding PM's reallocation being discussed by the pcc (topic #6 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit?pli=1# ) There is a suggestion to "transfer PMs from WP3-WP9 to WP2 and standardization activities as to be able to implement effective measures with respect to commitment of work". In general, I am not aware of any internal deadlines related to WP2 or WP11 which have been missed recently, and rejecting costs sounds like a too radical measure at this point. In any case, if such a transfer is considered, there should be a very concrete proposal. Also, under "other changes", item 5 states: "Intellectual Property Right. DoW and Collaboration Agreement aren?t homogeneous.". It is not clear what is the proposed DoW amendment. Same for item 7 ("RED.es as a new partner"). Would be good to understand what exactly is suggested to add to the DoW. Everything else seems fine. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Mon Jul 16 12:31:31 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:31:31 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] DoW amendment proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166B3608F@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Alex, your comments and proposals are absolutely correct. I think it is very important to clarify all relevant details before we start the discussion with the legal departments. Especially the inconsistency between the DoW and the CA has been discussed for a long time and was mentioned by the legal departments many times. May be it is now the right time so solve this issue. Best regards, Axel From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Alex Glikson Sent: Montag, 16. Juli 2012 11:59 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] DoW amendment proposal Few comments regarding PM's reallocation being discussed by the pcc (topic #6 at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit?pli=1#) There is a suggestion to "transfer PMs from WP3-WP9 to WP2 and standardization activities as to be able to implement effective measures with respect to commitment of work". In general, I am not aware of any internal deadlines related to WP2 or WP11 which have been missed recently, and rejecting costs sounds like a too radical measure at this point. In any case, if such a transfer is considered, there should be a very concrete proposal. Also, under "other changes", item 5 states: "Intellectual Property Right. DoW and Collaboration Agreement aren't homogeneous.". It is not clear what is the proposed DoW amendment. Same for item 7 ("RED.es as a new partner"). Would be good to understand what exactly is suggested to add to the DoW. Everything else seems fine. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From axel.fasse at sap.com Mon Jul 16 14:49:02 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:49:02 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] unique Legal Notice Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166B36382@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear PCC-Colleagues, I have one comment to our discussion about the topic "unique Legal Notice" which was discussed within our call. So far as I know, nearly all of the partners have made their comments to the draft for a unique Legal Notice proposed by Telefonica. In order to avoid lengthy discussion I would suggest, that Telefonica send out a revised draft of the Legal Notice that includes the comments from the partners. With this new version of the document, we have a good Starting point for our discussions. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 17 15:15:00 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:15:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Final version of the minutes, PCC meeting (July 16-17) Message-ID: <50056554.9070809@tid.es> Hi all, The consolidated final version of the minutes are available on the defined shared Google docs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit I have essentially fixed some typos and revised the writing. Cheers, -- 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 17 17:14:03 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:14:03 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes of the FI-WARE PCC meeting Message-ID: <5005813B.7090102@tid.es> Hi all, I have summarized the DECs and APs in a table at the end of the minutes to ease follow-up: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit Unless I hear any objection from you by tomorrow 12:00, I will circulate them to the whole consortium. Cheers, -- 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From axel.fasse at sap.com Wed Jul 18 10:18:35 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:18:35 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166CE533B@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. ? Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. ? Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. ? * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. ? * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Wed Jul 18 16:19:29 2012 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:19:29 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Support from CONCORD for the Second Open Call Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9AF1F34F@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Dear partners, (I include Carlos Ralli in CC as leader of the Dissemination WP) In the PCC telco we had this week, Juanjo said that the Second Open Call will be launched quite soon (with a possible deadline at the end of November). One of the recommendations we got from the EC and our reviewers was to further disseminate the contents of the Open Call and to widen the spectrum of communities without prejudging who could be interested in the topics. Last time our activities in the virtual world (our website, the one of CONCORD, mails, virtual media...) were reasonable, but in terms of events our presence was very poor. That is why we talked about the possibility of organizing several Infodays at National level that can be complemented with the presence of project partners in different events organized by the EC in Brussels (or wherever). National Infodays could be carried out (if not totally, at least partially) in native language, attracting local constituency that could provide good technical input. This message is to inform you that I have been contacted by CONCORD and I will have a teleconference with Petra and Ana (as leader of the Dissemination WG in the PPP) to check which support could be provided by them. My initial feedback will be: ? Organization of several Infodays (with the support of NCP) in relevant countries (at least France, Italy, Germany, besides Spain). They should take care of logistics and FI-WARE should at least manage to provide a speaker from that country ? Wide dissemination in their events, newsletter, website, try to position the announcement in all relevant sites of the EC and organizations around The date has not been fixed, but I would like you to provide your ideas on: ? The kind of support CONCORD could provide ? Specific activities that we would like to run for this second Open Call Thanks in advance, Nuria de Lama Research & Innovation Representative to the European Commission T +34 91214 9321 F +34 91754 3252 nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu Albarrac?n 25 28037 Madrid Spain www.atosresearch.eu es.atos.net ________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------ This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted. Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion confidencial destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional. Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje. Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas partes. Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus. ------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: image002.gif URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Jul 18 19:55:25 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:55:25 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Open Call: next steps and possible objections to prospective winners - Individual Evaluation Reports In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D078231@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D078231@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <5006F88D.8090103@tid.es> Hi all, Our PO, Arian Zwegers, has finally approved the results of the 1st Open Call ... We will send the Evalution Summary Reports tomorrow to all submitters and will contact the selected consortia for each of the topics (BM&BE and middleware) Cheers, -- 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Open Call: next steps and possible objections to prospective winners - Individual Evaluation Reports Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:49:00 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Thanks for the responses, which fully answered the open points. I hereby approve the report on the first FI-WARE Open Call. One more thing: I need to have signed versions of the Individual Evaluation Report. Please send me the signed versions (no hurry). Best regards, Arian From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:03 AM To: MARIA ISABEL ALONSO MEDIAVILLA Cc: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO; subsidies at tid.es; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Re: Open Call: next steps and possible objections to prospective winners - Individual Evaluation Reports Dear Arian, Please let us know if our responses to your questions are satisfactory. If so, please confirm this to us so that we can start sending the Summary Evaluation Reports to all submitters and we can start negotiations with the selected partners. Looking forward your confirmation. 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 On 18/07/12 10:43, MARIA ISABEL ALONSO MEDIAVILLA wrote: Dear Arian, As requested, I am sending you on behalf of Juanjo, the Individual Evaluation Reports for the eligible proposals for each topic. If you need further information, please let us know. Best wishes Isabel [Descripci?n: firma correo_iam] ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 8796 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jul 19 00:59:20 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:59:20 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call In-Reply-To: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166CE533B@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166CE533B@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <50073FC8.8070909@tid.es> Dear Axel, My comments between lines ... On 18/07/12 10:18, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. ? Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. We have forwarded your comments to our legal department and I hope we will get some answer tomorrow. However, let me point out the following: * Our intention was not propose this formula "for the future" but for being implemented now. We however, take note of your suggestion and will go for proposing a general formula in a future version of the DoW or the CA. * It may be right that it's only the EC who may reject justification of the efforts by the partners, but certainly we can workaround that issue by allowing any partner to justify whatever PMs they want in a given period but then stating in our report to the EC that TID doesn't agree with the justified costs and recommends the EC to reject them. This, combined with the fact that the signed CA establishes that we can retain interim payments, would allow us to achieve the effect we want to achieve. Be sure that it's not our willingness to penalize any partner. We hadn't proposed this measures if we hadn't detected the rist to fail in complying with the milestones we had agreed by end of June. BTW, I have to say that the measures have proven to be effective as you can see by reaction of all partners in last weeks/days. ? Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. I included a link to a google docs document with a copy of the last draft of the Legal Notice agreed by the legal departments ... with two paragraphs in yellow whose inclusion was asked by some partners (i.e., the last agreed draft is what you have there without those paragraphs) ... Therefore, I already distributed a version of the last draft agreed as you requested. Besides this, I provided a summary of the only questions that I'm aware are under discussion. Therefore, you have access to all what is needed to start the discussion. Given said this, the intention is to launch a thread of discussion involving the identified partners. We can launch that thread of discussion attaching the latest draft of the legal notice in a first email. That is not an issue. ? * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. The minutes are to capture what was discussed during the meeting ... not things that any member of the PCC may raise afterwards (despite they may be relevant to consider). I'm happy to discuss your proposal so what I'll do is to reply your message with cc to the PCC so that we can make progress on that discussion in a dedicated thread. ? * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. It's fine to discuss this but I want to point out something from the very beginning ... the openess to external parties of the Open Innovation Lab was described in the DoW, which is part of the Grant Agreement and therefore is legally binding all partners. Indeed, as the EC has repeated us several times, that is the part of the contract that prevails over others like the Consortium Agreement. The EC has told us that signing a CA that contradicts what is in the DoW would be considered an error in the CA to be fixed. Anyways, I'll create a separate thread of discussion on this topic to avoid mixing discussions. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Please point to me what is there in the minutes that didn't capture the discussion. As said above, it's fine to launch additional discussions, but this has nothing to do with publishing minutes of a meeting, which has to reflect what has discussed in the meeting and nothing more. In that respect, the only changes that were made to the minutes after we closed the meeting was to fix a number of typos and summarize APs and DECs at the end of the minutes. Best regards, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jul 19 02:23:11 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 02:23:11 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Red.es and OpenLab In-Reply-To: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166C4D0D2@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166C4D0D2@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <5007536F.6050404@tid.es> On 16/07/12 17:48, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, for a few minutes I have read the minutes again and I want to make some comments about the following AP. AP - There is a MoU that Telefonica and Red.es should sign which should establish that Red.es has rights to use the software to be able to run the FI-WARE Testbed and support the FI-WARE OpenLab related activities foreseen as part of FI-PPP program, but only those. I am not a legal expert, but I think it will be OK to allow Red.es the deployment and the operations of the FI-PPP Software and the operations of the TestBed. Fine but let's be precise ... What will be operated by Red.es is the infrastructure on top of which FI-WARE will be deployed, configured, run and operated by FI-WARE partners. Note that both the infrastructure provided by Red.es and the FI-WARE software deployed on top of it, is what conforms the FI-WARE Testbed. Red.es will deploy, configure and operate only the infrastructure but not the FI-WARE software. Concretely, these were the list of activities that it was agreed that Red.es would perform: o Support in the design of the physical infrastructure of the FI-WARE Testbed/OpenLab (number and characteristics of equipments to be placed, as well as how they will be setup) o Coordination of activities linked to the process of public adquisition of the equipments linked to the physical infrastructure of the FI-WARE Testbed/OpenLab o Housing of the physical infrastructure linked to the FI-WARE Testbed/OpenLab (basic services to be provided linked to the DataCenter where the physical infrastructure will be deployed) o Connectivity of the DataCenter where the physical infrastructure will be deployed to Internet o Basic DataCenter operation support o Support to dissemination events physically located in the place where the FI-WARE Testbed and OpenLab would be physically located (i.e., Sevilla): inaguration of the testbed, etc. Given said this, and given the fact that they will become partners of FI-WARE, we believe it would be also nice to allow them to add resources to support in activities linked to operation of FI-WARE GEs (e.g., monitoring FI-WARE GEs are up and running using the same tools they use to monitor the physical infrastructure) ... but that was not their major mission. If we agree with that, we may try to add additional items in the list above and to involve them as partners in WP10 responsible of certain activities in that WP beyond deployment, configuration and operation of the physical infrastructure. I believe it would go on our own benefit, so we may try to convince them :-) But I think it is very important to exclude the right to provide/operate/support the TestBed for non PPP Partners. I'm not sure what you mean here. Usage of the Testbed for experimentation by non PPP partners will only be feasible once we setup the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (which essentially equals to the FI-WARE Testbed opened to third parties for experimentation). In this respect, Red.es should also have the same rights (and obligations) regarding the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as it would have with the Testbed: deployment, configuration and operation of the physical infrastructure. Beside this, they do not have the right to use the PPP-Partner Software for their own company and processes. This topic should be made transparent within you (TID) MoU with Red.es. We may add clauses to the MoU to be signed with Red.es where we state that PPP-Partners' software will not be used by Red.es for their own company and processes. We may also add clauses to the MoU that make explicit that third parties will not be able to use the FI-WARE Testbed or Open Innovation Lab for anything other than experimentation of Future Internet Applications, explictly excluding the ability to use them to support their companies' operations, commercial services or internal processes. In this respect, we may add to the MoU that Red.es should grant that usage of the FI-WARE Testbed and Open Innovation Lab will comply with this rule (more details below). Beside this I would suggest that we use a three phase-approach for the communication with the legal departments to get an approaval for the TestBed running at Red.es. Phase one: Red.es hosts and operates the TestBed only for PPP partners Phase two: We finalize the creation of the binding OpenLab Legal Contract and ask again for the allowance of the legal departments to run the TestBed (Open InnovationLab) using this contract at Red.es. Phase three: Install the Software in the Open Innovation Lab and provide this Lab to external partners that have signed the binding legal contract I think with this approach we might have a chance to finalize the most important issues within the timeframe that avoids any delays in the project. I fundamentally agree with this but I believe that we can sign a MoU with Red.es now that closes all this in one shot, stating that they will warrant that usage of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab will only be granted to those non-PPP partners that declare to know and agree with the Legal Terms and Conditions that will be established regarding usage of the Open Innovation Lab in the context of the FI-PPP Program. These Legal Terms and Conditions can be defined after signing the MoU. I assume that we all agree that the Legal Terms and Conditions should be mostly focused in regulating that the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab should be only used for experimentation purposes, that support will be best-effort, that liabilities by FI-WARE partners will be limited, etc. Note that the Open Innovation Lab is nothing different that the FI-WARE Testbed but with access extended to non-PPP partners. Therefore, your proposed phase three simply consists in giving access to any third party that declares to know and agree with the Legal Terms and Conditions that will be established. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From axel.fasse at sap.com Fri Jul 20 15:32:56 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:32:56 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call In-Reply-To: <50073FC8.8070909@tid.es> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166CE533B@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> <50073FC8.8070909@tid.es> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361670011CF@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Juanjo, my comments between your lines are written in blue ... Best regards, Axel On 18/07/12 10:18, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. * Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. We have forwarded your comments to our legal department and I hope we will get some answer tomorrow. Dear Juanjo, that's fine. Please let us know the results of their evaluation. However, let me point out the following: * Our intention was not propose this formula "for the future" but for being implemented now. I understand your position, however we must be compliant to the existing legal Framework that was assigned by the partners during the contracting phase. We however, take note of your suggestion and will go for proposing a general formula in a future version of the DoW or the CA. If you really plan to go this way, you are right, but that is your decision. I would prefer a "more collaborative way" without this kind of penalties. * It may be right that it's only the EC who may reject justification of the efforts by the partners, but certainly we can workaround that issue by allowing any partner to justify whatever PMs they want in a given period but then stating in our report to the EC that TID doesn't agree with the justified costs and recommends the EC to reject them. This, combined with the fact that the signed CA establishes that we can retain interim payments, would allow us to achieve the effect we want to achieve. Be sure that it's not our willingness to penalize any partner. We hadn't proposed this measures if we hadn't detected the rist to fail in complying with the milestones we had agreed by end of June. BTW, I have to say that the measures have proven to be effective as you can see by reaction of all partners in last weeks/days. * Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. I included a link to a google docs document with a copy of the last draft of the Legal Notice agreed by the legal departments ... with two paragraphs in yellow whose inclusion was asked by some partners (i.e., the last agreed draft is what you have there without those paragraphs) ... Therefore, I already distributed a version of the last draft agreed as you requested. So far as I know, there have been some comments from partners that are not included in this version of the document. That is the reason why we would like to have one consolidated version to work upon. Further, to enable a fruitful discussion, we need a word document to have the possibility to discuss and make further suggestions. Your legal counsel will be able to provide you with a consolidated document which contains all remarks he received from the partners. . Besides this, I provided a summary of the only questions that I'm aware are under discussion. Therefore, you have access to all what is needed to start the discussion. That's right. However, to receive one version it would be helpful to provide one consolidated version - may be with optional sections - that could be discussed without reading all the mails and comments from the history. Given said this, the intention is to launch a thread of discussion involving the identified partners. We can launch that thread of discussion attaching the latest draft of the legal notice in a first email. That is not an issue. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. The minutes are to capture what was discussed during the meeting ... not things that any member of the PCC may raise afterwards (despite they may be relevant to consider). You are right. Because of that point I do not change the minutes. I'm happy to discuss your proposal so what I'll do is to reply your message with cc to the PCC so that we can make progress on that discussion in a dedicated thread. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. It's fine to discuss this but I want to point out something from the very beginning ... the openess to external parties of the Open Innovation Lab was described in the DoW, which is part of the Grant Agreement and therefore is legally binding all partners. You are right, however, there is a gap within the DoW because it is not clearly defined under which conditions and legal terms this open innovation lab should be available for the third parties. As you know, we have the same kind of unclarity within FI-PPP with the Open-Specs and the IP Issues. Before we go to external partners, we should have solved this issues completely. Indeed, as the EC has repeated us several times, that is the part of the contract that prevails over others like the Consortium Agreement. The EC has told us that signing a CA that contradicts what is in the DoW would be considered an error in the CA to be fixed. Anyways, I'll create a separate thread of discussion on this topic to avoid mixing discussions. Thank you for that, that's a very good idea. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Please point to me what is there in the minutes that didn't capture the discussion. As said above, it's fine to launch additional discussions, but this has nothing to do with publishing minutes of a meeting, which has to reflect what has discussed in the meeting and nothing more. Please mention in the minutes, that not all partner could agree on the topics that where discussed and the decisions that have been made. Especially if these decisions are potentially not consistent with respect to the existing legal contracts signed by the partners and the EU. Furthermore, the PCC lies under certain voting rules laid down in the CA and you must show, that you have reached the necessary quorum and votes for the decisions. This is missing in your minutes completely and the minutes must be therefore rejected. In that respect, the only changes that were made to the minutes after we closed the meeting was to fix a number of typos and summarize APs and DECs at the end of the minutes. Because of this, I expect to insert my concerns in the minutes. Best regards, -- Axel From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2012 00:59 To: Fasse, Axel Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu); Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Schweppe, Kathrin; Merz, Christian Subject: Re: Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call Dear Axel, My comments between lines ... On 18/07/12 10:18, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. * Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. We have forwarded your comments to our legal department and I hope we will get some answer tomorrow. However, let me point out the following: * Our intention was not propose this formula "for the future" but for being implemented now. We however, take note of your suggestion and will go for proposing a general formula in a future version of the DoW or the CA. * It may be right that it's only the EC who may reject justification of the efforts by the partners, but certainly we can workaround that issue by allowing any partner to justify whatever PMs they want in a given period but then stating in our report to the EC that TID doesn't agree with the justified costs and recommends the EC to reject them. This, combined with the fact that the signed CA establishes that we can retain interim payments, would allow us to achieve the effect we want to achieve. Be sure that it's not our willingness to penalize any partner. We hadn't proposed this measures if we hadn't detected the rist to fail in complying with the milestones we had agreed by end of June. BTW, I have to say that the measures have proven to be effective as you can see by reaction of all partners in last weeks/days. * Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. I included a link to a google docs document with a copy of the last draft of the Legal Notice agreed by the legal departments ... with two paragraphs in yellow whose inclusion was asked by some partners (i.e., the last agreed draft is what you have there without those paragraphs) ... Therefore, I already distributed a version of the last draft agreed as you requested. Besides this, I provided a summary of the only questions that I'm aware are under discussion. Therefore, you have access to all what is needed to start the discussion. Given said this, the intention is to launch a thread of discussion involving the identified partners. We can launch that thread of discussion attaching the latest draft of the legal notice in a first email. That is not an issue. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. The minutes are to capture what was discussed during the meeting ... not things that any member of the PCC may raise afterwards (despite they may be relevant to consider). I'm happy to discuss your proposal so what I'll do is to reply your message with cc to the PCC so that we can make progress on that discussion in a dedicated thread. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. It's fine to discuss this but I want to point out something from the very beginning ... the openess to external parties of the Open Innovation Lab was described in the DoW, which is part of the Grant Agreement and therefore is legally binding all partners. Indeed, as the EC has repeated us several times, that is the part of the contract that prevails over others like the Consortium Agreement. The EC has told us that signing a CA that contradicts what is in the DoW would be considered an error in the CA to be fixed. Anyways, I'll create a separate thread of discussion on this topic to avoid mixing discussions. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Please point to me what is there in the minutes that didn't capture the discussion. As said above, it's fine to launch additional discussions, but this has nothing to do with publishing minutes of a meeting, which has to reflect what has discussed in the meeting and nothing more. In that respect, the only changes that were made to the minutes after we closed the meeting was to fix a number of typos and summarize APs and DECs at the end of the minutes. Best regards, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From axel.fasse at sap.com Fri Jul 20 15:41:00 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:41:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Red.es and OpenLab In-Reply-To: <5007536F.6050404@tid.es> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166C4D0D2@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> <5007536F.6050404@tid.es> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361670011F4@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Juanjo, I have made my comments in blue. Because of the fact that there is actually no Legal Framework for the Open-Innovation-Lab, I have marked this issues in red. Best regards, Axel Dear Juanjo, for a few minutes I have read the minutes again and I want to make some comments about the following AP. AP - There is a MoU that Telefonica and Red.es should sign which should establish that Red.es has rights to use the software to be able to run the FI-WARE Testbed and support the FI-WARE OpenLab related activities foreseen as part of FI-PPP program, but only those. I am not a legal expert, but I think it will be OK to allow Red.es the deployment and the operations of the FI-PPP Software and the operations of the TestBed. Fine but let's be precise ... What will be operated by Red.es is the infrastructure on top of which FI-WARE will be deployed, configured, run and operated by FI-WARE partners. Note that both the infrastructure provided by Red.es and the FI-WARE software deployed on top of it, is what conforms the FI-WARE Testbed. Red.es will deploy, configure and operate only the infrastructure but not the FI-WARE software. That's fine form me. But, as mentioned in my previous mail, we should plan in the first approach only the TestBed and exclude the open-innovation-Lab from the current discussions. If you are talking about software, I think you are talking about the implementation (software) of the GE's provided by the partners for the installation -or the usage - in the TestBed? Concretely, these were the list of activities that it was agreed that Red.es would perform: o Support in the design of the physical infrastructure of the FI-WARE Testbed (and the OpenLab after the clarification of all legal issues) (number and characteristics of equipments to be placed, as well as how they will be setup) o Coordination of activities linked to the process of public adquisition of the equipments linked to the physical infrastructure of the FI-WARE Testbed (and the OpenLab after the clarification of all legal issues) o Housing of the physical infrastructure linked to the FI-WARE Testbed (and the OpenLab after the clarification of all legal issues) (basic services to be provided linked to the DataCenter where the physical infrastructure will be deployed) o Connectivity of the DataCenter where the physical infrastructure will be deployed to Internet o Basic DataCenter operation support o Support to dissemination events physically located in the place where the FI-WARE Testbed (and the OpenLab after the clarification of all legal issues) would be physically located (i.e., Sevilla): inaguration of the testbed, etc. Given said this, and given the fact that they will become partners of FI-WARE, we believe it would be also nice to allow them to add resources to support in activities linked to operation of FI-WARE GEs (e.g., monitoring FI-WARE GEs are up and running using the same tools they use to monitor the physical infrastructure) ... but that was not their major mission. If we agree with that, we may try to add additional items in the list above and to involve them as partners in WP10 responsible of certain activities in that WP beyond deployment, configuration and operation of the physical infrastructure. I believe it would go on our own benefit, so we may try to convince them :-) But I think it is very important to exclude the right to provide/operate/support the TestBed for non PPP Partners. I'm not sure what you mean here. Eventually, they are not partners. Within the timeslot from now until they have signed the contract we have to rely on the MoU and because of this, they do not have the same rights as PPP partners. Furthermore, you as the Coordinator would breach the CA if you allow Red.Es to use the Software of another partner than Telefonica. If you would like to give Red.Es Access to Software from another Fi-Ware Partner, you must discuss the MOU with them as well. After they have signed the contract they should have all the rights that are granted by the signed contract. Usage of the Testbed for experimentation by non PPP partners will only be feasible once we setup the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (which essentially equals to the FI-WARE Testbed opened to third parties for experimentation). Yes, you are right. But that's currently planned. Because of the inconsistency of the legal framework we should not mix up TestBed and Open-Innovation-Lab In this respect, Red.es should also have the same rights (and obligations) regarding the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as it would have with the Testbed: deployment, configuration and operation of the physical infrastructure. Yes, if you have finalized the Legal discussions! Beside this, they do not have the right to use the PPP-Partner Software for their own company and processes. This topic should be made transparent within you (TID) MoU with Red.es. So the MoU has to provide the legal framework for the phase from now until they have signed the contract. We may add clauses to the MoU to be signed with Red.es where we state that PPP-Partners' software will not be used by Red.es for their own company and processes. We may also add clauses to the MoU that make explicit that third parties will not be able to use the FI-WARE Testbed or (the OpenLab after the clarification of all legal issues) for anything other than experimentation of Future Internet Applications, explictly excluding the ability to use them to support their companies' operations, commercial services or internal processes. In this respect, we may add to the MoU that Red.es should grant that usage of the FI-WARE Testbed and Open Innovation Lab will comply with this rule (more details below). Beside this I would suggest that we use a three phase-approach for the communication with the legal departments to get an approaval for the TestBed running at Red.es. Phase one: Red.es hosts and operates the TestBed only for PPP partners Phase two: We finalize the creation of the binding OpenLab Legal Contract and ask again for the allowance of the legal departments to run the TestBed (Open InnovationLab) using this contract at Red.es. Phase three: Install the Software in the Open Innovation Lab and provide this Lab to external partners that have signed the binding legal contract I think with this approach we might have a chance to finalize the most important issues within the timeframe that avoids any delays in the project. I fundamentally agree with this but I believe that we can sign a MoU with Red.es now that closes all this in one shot, stating that they will warrant that usage of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab will only be granted to those non-PPP partners that declare to know and agree with the Legal Terms and Conditions that will be established regarding usage of the Open Innovation Lab in the context of the FI-PPP Program. These Legal Terms and Conditions can be defined after signing the MoU. Yes, because of this, we should agree on the fact, that we are talking eventually about the TestBed. The Open-Innovation lab is not included in the discussion because of the missing legal framework. This should be clearly mentioned and reflected within the MoU. Because of this, we should not mix these topics. Otherwise we are not able to find an agreement on this topic within the next days or weeks. I assume that we all agree that the Legal Terms and Conditions should be mostly focused in regulating that the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab should be only used for experimentation purposes, that support will be best-effort, that liabilities by FI-WARE partners will be limited, etc. As said before, please do not mix things. Let's focus the discussions to the TestBed first. And let us start the Discussion about the Open-Innovation-Lab after RED.es joined as partner. . Note that the Open Innovation Lab is nothing different that the FI-WARE Testbed but with access extended to non-PPP partners. Therefore, your proposed phase three simply consists in giving access to any third party that declares to know and agree with the Legal Terms and Conditions that will be established. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2012 02:23 To: Fasse, Axel Cc: Jose Jimenez (jimenez at tid.es); Schweppe, Kathrin; Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: Red.es and OpenLab On 16/07/12 17:48, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, for a few minutes I have read the minutes again and I want to make some comments about the following AP. AP - There is a MoU that Telefonica and Red.es should sign which should establish that Red.es has rights to use the software to be able to run the FI-WARE Testbed and support the FI-WARE OpenLab related activities foreseen as part of FI-PPP program, but only those. I am not a legal expert, but I think it will be OK to allow Red.es the deployment and the operations of the FI-PPP Software and the operations of the TestBed. Fine but let's be precise ... What will be operated by Red.es is the infrastructure on top of which FI-WARE will be deployed, configured, run and operated by FI-WARE partners. Note that both the infrastructure provided by Red.es and the FI-WARE software deployed on top of it, is what conforms the FI-WARE Testbed. Red.es will deploy, configure and operate only the infrastructure but not the FI-WARE software. Concretely, these were the list of activities that it was agreed that Red.es would perform: o Support in the design of the physical infrastructure of the FI-WARE Testbed/OpenLab (number and characteristics of equipments to be placed, as well as how they will be setup) o Coordination of activities linked to the process of public adquisition of the equipments linked to the physical infrastructure of the FI-WARE Testbed/OpenLab o Housing of the physical infrastructure linked to the FI-WARE Testbed/OpenLab (basic services to be provided linked to the DataCenter where the physical infrastructure will be deployed) o Connectivity of the DataCenter where the physical infrastructure will be deployed to Internet o Basic DataCenter operation support o Support to dissemination events physically located in the place where the FI-WARE Testbed and OpenLab would be physically located (i.e., Sevilla): inaguration of the testbed, etc. Given said this, and given the fact that they will become partners of FI-WARE, we believe it would be also nice to allow them to add resources to support in activities linked to operation of FI-WARE GEs (e.g., monitoring FI-WARE GEs are up and running using the same tools they use to monitor the physical infrastructure) ... but that was not their major mission. If we agree with that, we may try to add additional items in the list above and to involve them as partners in WP10 responsible of certain activities in that WP beyond deployment, configuration and operation of the physical infrastructure. I believe it would go on our own benefit, so we may try to convince them :-) But I think it is very important to exclude the right to provide/operate/support the TestBed for non PPP Partners. I'm not sure what you mean here. Usage of the Testbed for experimentation by non PPP partners will only be feasible once we setup the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (which essentially equals to the FI-WARE Testbed opened to third parties for experimentation). In this respect, Red.es should also have the same rights (and obligations) regarding the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as it would have with the Testbed: deployment, configuration and operation of the physical infrastructure. Beside this, they do not have the right to use the PPP-Partner Software for their own company and processes. This topic should be made transparent within you (TID) MoU with Red.es. We may add clauses to the MoU to be signed with Red.es where we state that PPP-Partners' software will not be used by Red.es for their own company and processes. We may also add clauses to the MoU that make explicit that third parties will not be able to use the FI-WARE Testbed or Open Innovation Lab for anything other than experimentation of Future Internet Applications, explictly excluding the ability to use them to support their companies' operations, commercial services or internal processes. In this respect, we may add to the MoU that Red.es should grant that usage of the FI-WARE Testbed and Open Innovation Lab will comply with this rule (more details below). Beside this I would suggest that we use a three phase-approach for the communication with the legal departments to get an approaval for the TestBed running at Red.es. Phase one: Red.es hosts and operates the TestBed only for PPP partners Phase two: We finalize the creation of the binding OpenLab Legal Contract and ask again for the allowance of the legal departments to run the TestBed (Open InnovationLab) using this contract at Red.es. Phase three: Install the Software in the Open Innovation Lab and provide this Lab to external partners that have signed the binding legal contract I think with this approach we might have a chance to finalize the most important issues within the timeframe that avoids any delays in the project. I fundamentally agree with this but I believe that we can sign a MoU with Red.es now that closes all this in one shot, stating that they will warrant that usage of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab will only be granted to those non-PPP partners that declare to know and agree with the Legal Terms and Conditions that will be established regarding usage of the Open Innovation Lab in the context of the FI-PPP Program. These Legal Terms and Conditions can be defined after signing the MoU. I assume that we all agree that the Legal Terms and Conditions should be mostly focused in regulating that the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab should be only used for experimentation purposes, that support will be best-effort, that liabilities by FI-WARE partners will be limited, etc. Note that the Open Innovation Lab is nothing different that the FI-WARE Testbed but with access extended to non-PPP partners. Therefore, your proposed phase three simply consists in giving access to any third party that declares to know and agree with the Legal Terms and Conditions that will be established. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Fri Jul 20 15:52:29 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:52:29 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call In-Reply-To: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361670011CF@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166CE533B@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> <50073FC8.8070909@tid.es> <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361670011CF@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <5009629D.70402@tid.es> On 20/07/12 15:32, Fasse, Axel wrote: On 18/07/12 10:18, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. * Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. We have forwarded your comments to our legal department and I hope we will get some answer tomorrow. Dear Juanjo, that's fine. Please let us know the results of their evaluation. Dear Axel, We got from our legal departments the confirmation that we can a) retain payments regarding periods and activities about which we understand that a given partner is under-performing and b) forward recommendations to the EC to reject costs claimed by any partner for a given period. Of course, it would be up to the EC to decide because, as you say, they are the ones that can make such decision. Therefore, there is nothing in the contract that prevents us to effectively apply the measurements we agreed to put in place at PCC level. It may require to perform steps in the proper manner, but that's all. Maybe we need to adjust the language and talk about "we will block payment and recommend rejection of costs to the EC" instead of "we will reject costs" but, at the end of the day, the difference will be minor. Remember that we were just trying to fix things and indeed provided useful tools to WPLs to perform their work. Given the results we are getting (many partners running to get things done), we believe we took the right decision and probably should have put it in place earlier. Best regards, -- Juanjo ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jul 23 06:55:50 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 06:55:50 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call In-Reply-To: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361670011CF@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636166CE533B@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> <50073FC8.8070909@tid.es> <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361670011CF@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <500CD956.2080701@tid.es> Hi, I already answered to the first point on Status of deliverables (our attorneys told us that the measurements we wanted to put in place are compatible with the existing legal framework, since we can reject deliverables based on internal review or simply recommend the EC to reject the costs statements of a partner) Between lines I'm answering the rest. On 20/07/12 15:32, Fasse, Axel wrote: * Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. I included a link to a google docs document with a copy of the last draft of the Legal Notice agreed by the legal departments ... with two paragraphs in yellow whose inclusion was asked by some partners (i.e., the last agreed draft is what you have there without those paragraphs) ... Therefore, I already distributed a version of the last draft agreed as you requested. So far as I know, there have been some comments from partners that are not included in this version of the document. That is the reason why we would like to have one consolidated version to work upon. Further, to enable a fruitful discussion, we need a word document to have the possibility to discuss and make further suggestions. Your legal counsel will be able to provide you with a consolidated document which contains all remarks he received from the partners. Besides this, I provided a summary of the only questions that I'm aware are under discussion. Therefore, you have access to all what is needed to start the discussion. That's right. However, to receive one version it would be helpful to provide one consolidated version - may be with optional sections - that could be discussed without reading all the mails and comments from the history. Given said this, the intention is to launch a thread of discussion involving the identified partners. We can launch that thread of discussion attaching the latest draft of the legal notice in a first email. That is not an issue. We launched a thread of discussion where a document in Word was attached. Therefore, we believe that we have covered your request. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. The minutes are to capture what was discussed during the meeting ... not things that any member of the PCC may raise afterwards (despite they may be relevant to consider). You are right. Because of that point I do not change the minutes. I'm happy to discuss your proposal so what I'll do is to reply your message with cc to the PCC so that we can make progress on that discussion in a dedicated thread. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. It's fine to discuss this but I want to point out something from the very beginning ... the openess to external parties of the Open Innovation Lab was described in the DoW, which is part of the Grant Agreement and therefore is legally binding all partners. You are right, however, there is a gap within the DoW because it is not clearly defined under which conditions and legal terms this open innovation lab should be available for the third parties. As you know, we have the same kind of unclarity within FI-PPP with the Open-Specs and the IP Issues. Before we go to external partners, we should have solved this issues completely. Indeed, as the EC has repeated us several times, that is the part of the contract that prevails over others like the Consortium Agreement. The EC has told us that signing a CA that contradicts what is in the DoW would be considered an error in the CA to be fixed. Anyways, I'll create a separate thread of discussion on this topic to avoid mixing discussions. Thank you for that, that's a very good idea. I have also launched a thread of discussion on these two matters by means of sending a response to your previous mail (search for subject: "Re: Red.es and OpenLab"). I found it was worth discussing these two topics together (you were indeed tackling both in this email I responded). BTW, you will see that we agree that we have to define the legal "Terms and Conditions" that users of the OpenLab would have to sign. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Please point to me what is there in the minutes that didn't capture the discussion. As said above, it's fine to launch additional discussions, but this has nothing to do with publishing minutes of a meeting, which has to reflect what has discussed in the meeting and nothing more. Please mention in the minutes, that not all partner could agree on the topics that where discussed and the decisions that have been made. Especially if these decisions are potentially not consistent with respect to the existing legal contracts signed by the partners and the EU. Furthermore, the PCC lies under certain voting rules laid down in the CA and you must show, that you have reached the necessary quorum and votes for the decisions. This is missing in your minutes completely and the minutes must be therefore rejected. Sorry but minutes can only be rejected if they haven't captured accurately what it was discussed and agreed/disagreed or the Action Points (APs) identified. However, the necessary quorum for the decisions was reached and we performed round tables where representatives expressed their position regarding the topics, after which final decisions/APs were adopted/defined. BTW, we went through one of these explicit round tables in order to take a final decision on the measurements established with respect to deliverables we announced would be available by end of June. One of the reasons why we use Google docs is that this allows participants to see what is being written in real time regarding Decisions or APs, so that they may raise any concern or objection on how those decisions/APs are being captured. Also because any participant can write down, on its own, what they feel that reflects more accurately its actual position on any matter of discussion. If you want, we can put some notes capturing all the above but clarifying that they belong to discussion after the PCC meeting and they do not change agreements on Decisions/APs taken during the meeting. Adding such notes is a little bit irregular (when should we stop adding such notes ?) but we can live with it. If you believe that some of the decisions have to be reconsidered, I'm afraid that you have to formulate it as a request to the PCC. This would require calling for another PCC meeting that treats the matter (of course, if a majority of PCC members indeed agree it is worth reconsidering the decisions/action-points you want to revise). Best regards, -- Juanjo In that respect, the only changes that were made to the minutes after we closed the meeting was to fix a number of typos and summarize APs and DECs at the end of the minutes. Because of this, I expect to insert my concerns in the minutes. Best regards, -- Axel From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Juli 2012 00:59 To: Fasse, Axel Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu); Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard; Schweppe, Kathrin; Merz, Christian Subject: Re: Comments to the Minutes of our PCC Call Dear Axel, My comments between lines ... On 18/07/12 10:18, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, As mentioned during the call, I have some comments with respect to the minutes. * Status of deliverables due by end of June --> The proposed way to ensure the delivery as foreseen in the DOW is not consistent with the existing legal framework agreed with the partners and the EU. Hence, there is no legal reason for the partners to follow the proposed process. Further, this will lead to discussions with the partners and their legal departments. To avoid these discussions, you might add a comment, that TID proposed this way for the future and will change the existing legal framework, esp. the CA accordingly. Please be aware, that this proposal needs to be agreed by all partners. I think you should find a proper solution - agreed by all partners - before starting the discussion with Arian and the EU. Please note, that the Coordinator does not decide about justification of the efforts of the partners, that was decided by the European Commission only. We have forwarded your comments to our legal department and I hope we will get some answer tomorrow. However, let me point out the following: * Our intention was not propose this formula "for the future" but for being implemented now. We however, take note of your suggestion and will go for proposing a general formula in a future version of the DoW or the CA. * It may be right that it's only the EC who may reject justification of the efforts by the partners, but certainly we can workaround that issue by allowing any partner to justify whatever PMs they want in a given period but then stating in our report to the EC that TID doesn't agree with the justified costs and recommends the EC to reject them. This, combined with the fact that the signed CA establishes that we can retain interim payments, would allow us to achieve the effect we want to achieve. Be sure that it's not our willingness to penalize any partner. We hadn't proposed this measures if we hadn't detected the rist to fail in complying with the milestones we had agreed by end of June. BTW, I have to say that the measures have proven to be effective as you can see by reaction of all partners in last weeks/days. * Legal Aspects - Legal Notice of Open Specifications --> I send out my comments about the proposed way to come to "one legal" notice within my mail to the PCC-List. So far as I can see, you did not follow or even included my proposal within the minutes. Beside this, the PCC cannot overrule the existing legal framework. Because of this, I would suggest again that your legal-expert provide a reviewed version of the proposal that includes the comments from all of your partners and restart the negotiations again. I included a link to a google docs document with a copy of the last draft of the Legal Notice agreed by the legal departments ... with two paragraphs in yellow whose inclusion was asked by some partners (i.e., the last agreed draft is what you have there without those paragraphs) ... Therefore, I already distributed a version of the last draft agreed as you requested. Besides this, I provided a summary of the only questions that I'm aware are under discussion. Therefore, you have access to all what is needed to start the discussion. Given said this, the intention is to launch a thread of discussion involving the identified partners. We can launch that thread of discussion attaching the latest draft of the legal notice in a first email. That is not an issue. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to deploy and operate FI-WARE GEs on the FI-WARE Testbed --> With respect to the Topic Red.es I made a concrete proposal how to proceed. So far as I know, nothing of that can be found in the Minutes. Please include my suggestions into the minutes and explain, why this proposal is not acceptable. Please note, that you cannot bind partner with a MOU between TID and Red.es to provide Software to Red.es. The minutes are to capture what was discussed during the meeting ... not things that any member of the PCC may raise afterwards (despite they may be relevant to consider). I'm happy to discuss your proposal so what I'll do is to reply your message with cc to the PCC so that we can make progress on that discussion in a dedicated thread. * * Legal Aspects - Rights to access the FI-WARE Open Lab --> I proposed to finalize the legal framework that allows us to open the TestBed to external Partner (Open Innovation Lab) in order to mix this topic with the PPP TestBed Hosting at Red.es. The proposal should be agreed by the legal departments of you partners, before we start the discussion about this topic within the PCC. The PCC could make suggestions, but these suggestions are - so far as I know - legally not binding for the FI-WARE / PPP partners. Further, please bring together the legal contacts of the partners, so they can start the discussions about the topic in due time. It's fine to discuss this but I want to point out something from the very beginning ... the openess to external parties of the Open Innovation Lab was described in the DoW, which is part of the Grant Agreement and therefore is legally binding all partners. Indeed, as the EC has repeated us several times, that is the part of the contract that prevails over others like the Consortium Agreement. The EC has told us that signing a CA that contradicts what is in the DoW would be considered an error in the CA to be fixed. Anyways, I'll create a separate thread of discussion on this topic to avoid mixing discussions. Because of the former discussions and mails, I don't think that it is possible to provide the minutes in the current version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit >From my point of view it would be important to change the Minutes in a consistent way before we provide these minutes to all partners. Please point to me what is there in the minutes that didn't capture the discussion. As said above, it's fine to launch additional discussions, but this has nothing to do with publishing minutes of a meeting, which has to reflect what has discussed in the meeting and nothing more. In that respect, the only changes that were made to the minutes after we closed the meeting was to fix a number of typos and summarize APs and DECs at the end of the minutes. Best regards, -- Juanjo Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From axel.fasse at sap.com Mon Jul 23 18:38:03 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:38:03 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes PCC Call Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636167142D81@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Juanjo, In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I have tried to make some changes, comments and remarks within the minutes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit Actually I do not have the right to do this, that's why I have sent you a PDF-Version of the minutes that contains the comments and remarks. I you take over the right to make the changes, I will do this. If not, I would suggest that you - or one of your colleagues -make the changes. Please let me know how to proceed. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WAREPCCmeetingJuly16th_SAP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217462 bytes Desc: FI-WAREPCCmeetingJuly16th_SAP.pdf URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 24 00:19:18 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:19:18 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes PCC Call In-Reply-To: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636167142D81@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636167142D81@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Message-ID: <500DCDE6.2070600@tid.es> Dear Axel, You insist in trying to drop decisions or Action Points that were agreed during the confcall. While I can live with adding notes that may describe current SAP's positions (many of which have been expressed after the confcall but not during the confcall), this shouldn't mean that we have to change the decisions or Action Points that were agreed. Again, you can ask for a new PCC meeting because you want that the PCC reconsiders decisions taken and/or re-define some of the Action Points. If a majority of PCC members agree, it's fine with us. BTW, in the following email I will report on a confcall we have had with our PO, Arian Zwegers. Cheers, -- 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 On 23/07/12 18:38, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I have tried to make some changes, comments and remarks within the minutes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit Actually I do not have the right to do this, that's why I have sent you a PDF-Version of the minutes that contains the comments and remarks. I you take over the right to make the changes, I will do this. If not, I would suggest that you - or one of your colleagues -make the changes. Please let me know how to proceed. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 24 00:27:03 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:27:03 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] On formula for delivering software and Installation/Administration Guidelines marked as PP and linked to GEs In-Reply-To: <500D8E9A.4050506@tid.es> References: <500D8E9A.4050506@tid.es> Message-ID: <500DCFB7.4020404@tid.es> Dear colleagues, I have had a long conversation with our PO this afternoon and we managed to agree on the formula for delivering the software and Installation/Administration Guidelines linked to the GEs that are marked as PP. The agreement is that both deliverables can be made available to the EC for auditing/reviewing purposes on the servers (indeed, VMs) where the software will actually be hosted, this meaning either servers located in the datacenter linked to the FI-WARE Testbed or remote servers (this only applying to those cases where it was agreed that the GE would not be deployed on the FI-WARE Testbed datacenter). We just need to generate a document that identifies the server where the software (binaries) and Installation/Administration Guides will be available and also explains how the EC can get access to the binaries and Installation/Administration Guides. Note that software must be binaries and not VM images. I have push for adoption of this solution as a mean to cover all the concerns expressed by some of the partners. Based on the Collaboration Agreement signed by all parties, FI-WARE GE software binaries and Installation/Administration Guides will not be made available to FI-PPP partners unless they: * request them in writing * require them because they need them for execution of their respective projects within the FI-PPP * can explain that using them "as a Service" through a well defined API (from the FI-WARE Testbed or any other alternative hosting facility) is not enough * an agreement is signed between the GE owner and the FI-PPP partner requesting the software Note that while it's unlikely that a UC project may require access to binaries and Installation/Administration Guides in this first phase of the program ... I expect that these three conditions may fulfilled by several trials in phase 2 and 3 of the FI-PPP. Nevertheless, there will be some few cases where the above conditions would apply even in the current, first phase of the program. It is clear regarding the Cloud Proxy GE in my opinion, but maybe also true with respect to some IoT gateway -related GEs or other GEs that UC projects may need to deploy in local infrastructures. We will keep the "FI-WARE PPP Restricted" project only accessible to FI-WARE partners and the EC (plus reviewers). We will also probably rename it as "FI-WARE Review". GE owners are free to officially deliver their software (binaries) and Installation/Administration Guides on the SVN and docman tools of that project. They may also deliver only foreground software there. This would be an alternative to creation of a dedicated space, at the servers where the software is hosted, where the software should easily be identifiable against any other software. Actually, we will deliver a document to the EC where we will declare that the software is available in the SVN and docman system of this project in FusionForge. Please let us know what of the two options you will choose before end of this week. That way, we will be able to organize the final package of deliverables. In the case that any UC project requires access to binaries and Installation/Administration Guides of a given FI-WARE GE, the above conditions should be met and then we will discuss how the software should be delivered. Hope it helps. Don't hesitate to ask any doubt or question you may have. Cheers, -- 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 24 01:14:00 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:14:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project Message-ID: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> Hi all, I have had a confcall with our PO where we have addressed a number of important issues and have discussed about general status of the project and the program. This email is trying to share with you information about what has been discussed. Don't hesitate to share this information with members of your respective chapter/WP teams. As I have already reported in a previous mail, the first thing we discussed had to do with how to manage deliverables linked to software and Installation/Administration Guides marked as PP. I hope this solves major concerns raised by some of the partners. Second point that was addressed had to do with measurements defined to avoid further delays in meeting defined deadlines. PO is backing us on the decision taken and welcome them. Even in the case that TID were not legally able to reject submission of financial/cost statements (something he doubts because he believes it can), he believes that TID not only can but must identify financial/costs reports TID believes are not in line with what is the actual work carried out and the EC would take decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I shared with the PO that we believe that all partners will do their best to comply with the defined milestones not just to avoid implementation of the defined measurements but for the sake of the project. I believe that the PO feels confident about the status but let's try not to let him down. I reported about the status of the Testbed and the contingency plan that we put in place. He seemed to be fine with that. I asked him about the 1st year FI-WARE Review Report and he told me that we shouldn't expect this earlier than mid August. I explained Arian our plans regarding resubmission of the Technical Roadmap (in line with what we proposed during the 1st year FI-WARE Review meeting) and he seemed to be fine with them. He confirmed the relevance of the white paper describing the encompassing usage of GEs. I already announced him that it would be rather difficult to get it finished by the end of July because we are all so busy. It seemed that his major concern was to to make sure it be ready before an Information Day regarding the phase 2 of the FI-PPP that the EC has planned by August 30 in Brussels. I reported also that we were working hard on the deliverable regarding 3rd party innovation enablement and trying to get it ready by end of July or, if not, just a few days later. He seemed to be happy with that. Regarding results of the 1st Open Call, Arian expects that the next step will be that we elaborate an amendment of the DoW which incorporates the new partners and their description of work. However, we agreed that such DoW amendment should try to go after the one where we will try to incorporate all pending changes which were summarized and agreed during the last PCC meetings. He was ok with the planning of the second Open Call but would like to see the third Open Call later than what we proposed (January next year instead of end of October) in order to allow incorporation of topics that may be demanded by UC trials selected in phase 2 (hearings are planned to end beginning of December this year). I proposed him the possibility to formulate the 2nd Open Call so that it may consider topics with different closing dates for final publication of Epics and different submission deadlines. This would allow to incorporate topics like Security in this 2nd Open Call. Arian believes this may be feasible. Definitively, I will propose discussing this during the confcall of the FI-PPP AB that will take place this week. I think this was all. I'm happy to respond any question that you may have. 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From ste.depanfilis at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 07:08:10 2012 From: ste.depanfilis at gmail.com (ste.depanfilis at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 05:08:10 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: [Fiware-wpl] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project In-Reply-To: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> References: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> Message-ID: <1890526146-1343106182-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-43342595-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> Dear Juanjo, Thank you very much for you report. Just a small issue: about the first point you said you talked about sw delivery, but you did not specified what you told him. I guess what agreed during yesterday phc. Can you further detail? Thank you in advance! Ciao Stefano Le mail ti raggiungono ovunque con BlackBerry? from Vodafone! -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro Sender: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:14:00 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpl] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project Hi all, I have had a confcall with our PO where we have addressed a number of important issues and have discussed about general status of the project and the program. This email is trying to share with you information about what has been discussed. Don't hesitate to share this information with members of your respective chapter/WP teams. As I have already reported in a previous mail, the first thing we discussed had to do with how to manage deliverables linked to software and Installation/Administration Guides marked as PP. I hope this solves major concerns raised by some of the partners. Second point that was addressed had to do with measurements defined to avoid further delays in meeting defined deadlines. PO is backing us on the decision taken and welcome them. Even in the case that TID were not legally able to reject submission of financial/cost statements (something he doubts because he believes it can), he believes that TID not only can but must identify financial/costs reports TID believes are not in line with what is the actual work carried out and the EC would take decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I shared with the PO that we believe that all partners will do their best to comply with the defined milestones not just to avoid implementation of the defined measurements but for the sake of the project. I believe that the PO feels confident about the status but let's try not to let him down. I reported about the status of the Testbed and the contingency plan that we put in place. He seemed to be fine with that. I asked him about the 1st year FI-WARE Review Report and he told me that we shouldn't expect this earlier than mid August. I explained Arian our plans regarding resubmission of the Technical Roadmap (in line with what we proposed during the 1st year FI-WARE Review meeting) and he seemed to be fine with them. He confirmed the relevance of the white paper describing the encompassing usage of GEs. I already announced him that it would be rather difficult to get it finished by the end of July because we are all so busy. It seemed that his major concern was to to make sure it be ready before an Information Day regarding the phase 2 of the FI-PPP that the EC has planned by August 30 in Brussels. I reported also that we were working hard on the deliverable regarding 3rd party innovation enablement and trying to get it ready by end of July or, if not, just a few days later. He seemed to be happy with that. Regarding results of the 1st Open Call, Arian expects that the next step will be that we elaborate an amendment of the DoW which incorporates the new partners and their description of work. However, we agreed that such DoW amendment should try to go after the one where we will try to incorporate all pending changes which were summarized and agreed during the last PCC meetings. He was ok with the planning of the second Open Call but would like to see the third Open Call later than what we proposed (January next year instead of end of October) in order to allow incorporation of topics that may be demanded by UC trials selected in phase 2 (hearings are planned to end beginning of December this year). I proposed him the possibility to formulate the 2nd Open Call so that it may consider topics with different closing dates for final publication of Epics and different submission deadlines. This would allow to incorporate topics like Security in this 2nd Open Call. Arian believes this may be feasible. Definitively, I will propose discussing this during the confcall of the FI-PPP AB that will take place this week. I think this was all. I'm happy to respond any question that you may have. 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 24 08:48:36 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:48:36 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: [Fiware-wpl] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project In-Reply-To: <1890526146-1343106182-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-43342595-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> References: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> <1890526146-1343106182-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-43342595-@b26.c14.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <500E4544.1010303@tid.es> On 24/07/12 07:08, ste.depanfilis at gmail.com wrote: > Dear Juanjo, > > Thank you very much for you report. > Just a small issue: about the first point you said you talked about sw delivery, but you did not specified what you told him. I guess what agreed during yesterday phc. Can you further detail? I sent a dedicated mail on the matter previous to that mail. Look for mail with subject "On formula for delivering software and Installation/Administration Guidelines marked as PP and linked to GEs" Cheers, -- Juanjo > > Thank you in advance! > > Ciao > Stefano > > Le mail ti raggiungono ovunque con BlackBerry? from Vodafone! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juanjo Hierro > Sender: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 01:14:00 > To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: [Fiware-wpl] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the > FI-WARE project > > Hi all, > > I have had a confcall with our PO where we have addressed a number > of important issues and have discussed about general status of the > project and the program. This email is trying to share with you > information about what has been discussed. > > Don't hesitate to share this information with members of your > respective chapter/WP teams. > > As I have already reported in a previous mail, the first thing we > discussed had to do with how to manage deliverables linked to software > and Installation/Administration Guides marked as PP. I hope this > solves major concerns raised by some of the partners. > > Second point that was addressed had to do with measurements defined > to avoid further delays in meeting defined deadlines. PO is backing us > on the decision taken and welcome them. Even in the case that TID were > not legally able to reject submission of financial/cost statements > (something he doubts because he believes it can), he believes that TID > not only can but must identify financial/costs reports TID believes are > not in line with what is the actual work carried out and the EC would > take decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I shared with the PO that > we believe that all partners will do their best to comply with the > defined milestones not just to avoid implementation of the defined > measurements but for the sake of the project. I believe that the PO > feels confident about the status but let's try not to let him down. > > I reported about the status of the Testbed and the contingency plan > that we put in place. He seemed to be fine with that. > > I asked him about the 1st year FI-WARE Review Report and he told me > that we shouldn't expect this earlier than mid August. I explained > Arian our plans regarding resubmission of the Technical Roadmap (in line > with what we proposed during the 1st year FI-WARE Review meeting) and he > seemed to be fine with them. He confirmed the relevance of the white > paper describing the encompassing usage of GEs. I already announced > him that it would be rather difficult to get it finished by the end of > July because we are all so busy. It seemed that his major concern was to > to make sure it be ready before an Information Day regarding the phase 2 > of the FI-PPP that the EC has planned by August 30 in Brussels. > > I reported also that we were working hard on the deliverable > regarding 3rd party innovation enablement and trying to get it ready by > end of July or, if not, just a few days later. He seemed to be happy > with that. > > Regarding results of the 1st Open Call, Arian expects that the next > step will be that we elaborate an amendment of the DoW which > incorporates the new partners and their description of work. However, we > agreed that such DoW amendment should try to go after the one where we > will try to incorporate all pending changes which were summarized and > agreed during the last PCC meetings. > > He was ok with the planning of the second Open Call but would like to > see the third Open Call later than what we proposed (January next year > instead of end of October) in order to allow incorporation of topics > that may be demanded by UC trials selected in phase 2 (hearings are > planned to end beginning of December this year). I proposed him the > possibility to formulate the 2nd Open Call so that it may consider > topics with different closing dates for final publication of Epics and > different submission deadlines. This would allow to incorporate topics > like Security in this 2nd Open Call. Arian believes this may be > feasible. Definitively, I will propose discussing this during the > confcall of the FI-PPP AB that will take place this week. > > I think this was all. I'm happy to respond any question that you > may have. > > 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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-wpl mailing list > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl > ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 From axel.fasse at sap.com Tue Jul 24 10:12:22 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 10:12:22 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Minutes PCC Call In-Reply-To: <500DCDE6.2070600@tid.es> References: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A636167142D81@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> <500DCDE6.2070600@tid.es> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361671435D7@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dear Juanjo, so far as I know, I have made all of the comments and remarks within the call, but these comments are not reflected within the minutes. Especially the DEC-Parts where not agreed by me, this was not mentioned with in the minutes. In order to avoid this kind of issues in the future I would suggest to document the decisions more precisely. You - as the coordinator - can suggest a proposal for a decision within the minutes, afterwards all the partner should vote - one by one - for the proposal. So far as I know, this way is exactly described within the contracts. Afterwards, we have to follow the legal framework that describes exactly which kind of decisions could be taken by the PCC and which of then should be made by a GA. So the PCC has to decide which of the decisions the PCC could take and which of them are a proposal from the GA. And all of this stuff should be documented properly within the minutes. I don't think that it is necessary to have a new call to talk about the changes. I would invite the partners to add their comments and remarks within the minutes as well. If they are allowed to make the changes, this could be done - hopefully - within the next days. If I understand the existing contracts correctly, it was there foreseen that partners are allowed to make changes in order to ensure that all of their ideas and topics are reflected properly within the minutes. Especially with respect to topics that are related to IP-issues or to changes within legal-framework (additional penalties, ...), it is important to allow PCC members to make a discussion with the legal departments with their legal colleagues to ensure that they can also agree with the proposals/decisions. And this discussions might also lead to additional changes and comments within the minutes. In addition to my former comments I would like add, that the CA (3.3.2.1.6) says that the minutes are approved in no one of the partners contradicts within a period of 15 days. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Best regards, Axel From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 00:19 To: Fasse, Axel Cc: 'fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu' (fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu) Subject: Re: Minutes PCC Call Dear Axel, You insist in trying to drop decisions or Action Points that were agreed during the confcall. While I can live with adding notes that may describe current SAP's positions (many of which have been expressed after the confcall but not during the confcall), this shouldn't mean that we have to change the decisions or Action Points that were agreed. Again, you can ask for a new PCC meeting because you want that the PCC reconsiders decisions taken and/or re-define some of the Action Points. If a majority of PCC members agree, it's fine with us. BTW, in the following email I will report on a confcall we have had with our PO, Arian Zwegers. Cheers, -- 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 On 23/07/12 18:38, Fasse, Axel wrote: Dear Juanjo, In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I have tried to make some changes, comments and remarks within the minutes. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4Dul5cQ5XdAm4HYeaouhnRs7kuK1iB3ROTFN2DjH74/edit Actually I do not have the right to do this, that's why I have sent you a PDF-Version of the minutes that contains the comments and remarks. I you take over the right to make the changes, I will do this. If not, I would suggest that you - or one of your colleagues -make the changes. Please let me know how to proceed. Best regards, Axel --------------------------- Axel Fasse Senior Researcher SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany T +49 6227 7-52528 F +49 6227 78-55237 M +4915153858917 E axel.fasse at sap.com www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jul 24 13:04:33 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:04:33 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpa] On formula for delivering software and Installation/Administration Guidelines marked as PP and linked to GEs In-Reply-To: <500DCFB7.4020404@tid.es> References: <500D8E9A.4050506@tid.es> <500DCFB7.4020404@tid.es> Message-ID: <500E8141.2080108@tid.es> Please share this within your teams. Cheers, -- 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 On 24/07/12 00:27, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear colleagues, I have had a long conversation with our PO this afternoon and we managed to agree on the formula for delivering the software and Installation/Administration Guidelines linked to the GEs that are marked as PP. The agreement is that both deliverables can be made available to the EC for auditing/reviewing purposes on the servers (indeed, VMs) where the software will actually be hosted, this meaning either servers located in the datacenter linked to the FI-WARE Testbed or remote servers (this only applying to those cases where it was agreed that the GE would not be deployed on the FI-WARE Testbed datacenter). We just need to generate a document that identifies the server where the software (binaries) and Installation/Administration Guides will be available and also explains how the EC can get access to the binaries and Installation/Administration Guides. Note that software must be binaries and not VM images. I have push for adoption of this solution as a mean to cover all the concerns expressed by some of the partners. Based on the Collaboration Agreement signed by all parties, FI-WARE GE software binaries and Installation/Administration Guides will not be made available to FI-PPP partners unless they: * request them in writing * require them because they need them for execution of their respective projects within the FI-PPP * can explain that using them "as a Service" through a well defined API (from the FI-WARE Testbed or any other alternative hosting facility) is not enough * an agreement is signed between the GE owner and the FI-PPP partner requesting the software Note that while it's unlikely that a UC project may require access to binaries and Installation/Administration Guides in this first phase of the program ... I expect that these three conditions may fulfilled by several trials in phase 2 and 3 of the FI-PPP. Nevertheless, there will be some few cases where the above conditions would apply even in the current, first phase of the program. It is clear regarding the Cloud Proxy GE in my opinion, but maybe also true with respect to some IoT gateway -related GEs or other GEs that UC projects may need to deploy in local infrastructures. We will keep the "FI-WARE PPP Restricted" project only accessible to FI-WARE partners and the EC (plus reviewers). We will also probably rename it as "FI-WARE Review". GE owners are free to officially deliver their software (binaries) and Installation/Administration Guides on the SVN and docman tools of that project. They may also deliver only foreground software there. This would be an alternative to creation of a dedicated space, at the servers where the software is hosted, where the software should easily be identifiable against any other software. Actually, we will deliver a document to the EC where we will declare that the software is available in the SVN and docman system of this project in FusionForge. Please let us know what of the two options you will choose before end of this week. That way, we will be able to organize the final package of deliverables. In the case that any UC project requires access to binaries and Installation/Administration Guides of a given FI-WARE GE, the above conditions should be met and then we will discuss how the software should be delivered. Hope it helps. Don't hesitate to ask any doubt or question you may have. Cheers, -- 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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-wpa mailing list Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpa ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From axel.fasse at sap.com Tue Jul 24 19:20:39 2012 From: axel.fasse at sap.com (Fasse, Axel) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:20:39 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpa] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project In-Reply-To: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> References: <500DDAB8.3060303@tid.es> Message-ID: <2C6296E1876B5C49962495FDACDC7A6361671BB324@DEWDFECCR01.wdf.sap.corp> Dera Juanjo, thank you very much for your clarification. I think it would be a good idea to make some comments, that are already mentioned before in the different mails with respect to the PCC Call and which were mentioned again within the PDF File with my comments to the PCC minutes. So far as I understand your mail, it seems to me, as if you have not taken into account my remarks during the call with our PO. Because of that, I would like to make my comments again. I have added my comments directly into your mail. Best regards, Axel -----Original Message----- From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 01:14 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project Hi all, I have had a confcall with our PO where we have addressed a number of important issues and have discussed about general status of the project and the program. This email is trying to share with you information about what has been discussed. Don't hesitate to share this information with members of your respective chapter/WP teams. As I have already reported in a previous mail, the first thing we discussed had to do with how to manage deliverables linked to software and Installation/Administration Guides marked as PP. I hope this solves major concerns raised by some of the partners. Yes, that's the right way, that's fine for us. Second point that was addressed had to do with measurements defined to avoid further delays in meeting defined deadlines. PO is backing us on the decision taken and welcome them. Even in the case that TID were not legally able to reject submission of financial/cost statements (something he doubts because he believes it can), he believes that TID not only can but must identify financial/costs reports TID believes are not in line with what is the actual work carried out and the EC would take decisions accordingly. Nevertheless, I shared with the PO that we believe that all partners will do their best to comply with the defined milestones not just to avoid implementation of the defined measurements but for the sake of the project. I believe that the PO feels confident about the status but let's try not to let him down. >From the PO's point of view, I can understand that he likes your proposal. But this is actually not compatible with the existing legal contracts. I would suggest to propose another way that is compliant to all of the legal contracts and that is formally agreed by all partners. If you - as the coordinator - have finished the proposal we should explain the existing problem to the PO and try to convince him about our new way to take care about the timeline and the quality of the deliverables I reported about the status of the Testbed and the contingency plan that we put in place. He seemed to be fine with that. >From my point of view some of the details are missing. I would suggest to avoid any over-selling. I asked him about the 1st year FI-WARE Review Report and he told me that we shouldn't expect this earlier than mid August. I explained Arian our plans regarding resubmission of the Technical Roadmap (in line with what we proposed during the 1st year FI-WARE Review meeting) and he seemed to be fine with them. He confirmed the relevance of the white paper describing the encompassing usage of GEs. I already announced him that it would be rather difficult to get it finished by the end of July because we are all so busy. It seemed that his major concern was to to make sure it be ready before an Information Day regarding the phase 2 of the FI-PPP that the EC has planned by August 30 in Brussels. I reported also that we were working hard on the deliverable regarding 3rd party innovation enablement and trying to get it ready by end of July or, if not, just a few days later. He seemed to be happy with that. Regarding results of the 1st Open Call, Arian expects that the next step will be that we elaborate an amendment of the DoW which incorporates the new partners and their description of work. However, we agreed that such DoW amendment should try to go after the one where we will try to incorporate all pending changes which were summarized and agreed during the last PCC meetings. That's a very good approach. He was ok with the planning of the second Open Call but would like to see the third Open Call later than what we proposed (January next year instead of end of October) in order to allow incorporation of topics that may be demanded by UC trials selected in phase 2 (hearings are planned to end beginning of December this year). I proposed him the possibility to formulate the 2nd Open Call so that it may consider topics with different closing dates for final publication of Epics and different submission deadlines. This would allow to incorporate topics like Security in this 2nd Open Call. Arian believes this may be feasible. Definitively, I will propose discussing this during the confcall of the FI-PPP AB that will take place this week. I think this was all. I'm happy to respond any question that you may have. 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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-wpa mailing list Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jul 30 11:00:09 2012 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:00:09 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report In-Reply-To: <50164CB7.1060804@tid.es> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D07CB70@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <50164CB7.1060804@tid.es> Message-ID: <50164D19.1080207@tid.es> Hi, Just wanted to add the fiware-pcc, in order to make the dissemination more complete. Don't hesitate to use this as a tool to demonstrate members of your team the need that they take things seriously and deliver. Best regards, -- Juanjo On 30/07/12 10:58, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear colleagues, We have just received the following extract of the executive summary draft review report. We haven't had time to review it. But certainly the review report is not as positive as we thought after the first year review meeting. Overall, it is worth to highlight that the project's assestment is: * Unsatisfactory progress (The project has failed to achieve key objectives and/or is not at all on schedule)" This, among other things, confirms us that the recent measurements put in place were required. Now, it's critical to demonstrate that we are going to deliver what was due and that the testbed will not get delayed. We'll come with additional comments later. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE: extract executive summary draft review report Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:42:05 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear all, Below is an extract from the draft executive summary of the draft M12 review report. The extract may deviate from the executive summary in the final version of the review report. It is sent since it contains some information, e.g. about deliverable acceptance, that you may want to know asap. Best regards, Arian. ====================== The objectives of the project during this period remain unchanged, but are brought into sharp focus due to the delay of two months plus now apparent, and the critical need to release the complete and comprehensive Generic Enabler (GE) Open Specifications and accompanying reference code as soon as possible in order to not risk destabilizing the entire FI PPP. Many primary technical deliverables expected at M12 are not yet available, which is extremely poor progress given that they are some of the main achievements planned for Month 12 and create the first useable foundation for Use Cases projects to build upon. Compounding this failure is the poor quality and incompleteness of various technical deliverables; a quite astounding result given the resources available to the project. According to the Description of Work (DoW), the main achievements for this period should be the first version of the GE open specifications, software prototypes and related guidance material and test plan. Only the specifications were delivered so far. However, they are inadequate for communication and unified understanding with the Use Case projects, are not of the required quality to serve the needs of those projects, and do not provide sufficient basis for practical implementation by software developers - all of which are fundamental to the rationale for and objectives of FI-WARE. It is unclear in many of the GE specifications which are the reusable and commonly shared functions, and which usage areas across various sectors would utilize these GEs. There are also no details on the protocols that support interoperability with other GEs or third party products or how this interoperability would be achieved. Moreover, a consolidated and consistent presentation of the specifications is still missing. There is a lot of confusion about what the GEs really are, or meant to be, within the FI-WARE consortium, and most probably the UC projects, not to mention the world at large. They are a mixed bag, including functional descriptions, specifications of (not necessarily well-defined) technical functions, specification of access and other operational protocols, specification of access to other existing "modules"/"components"/"devices" and so on, specifications to enable interfaces between existing protocols, specifications to enable deployment of other collection of protocols as "engines", etc. As mentioned in the DoW, "GE Open Specifications will contain all the information required in order to build compliant products which can work as alternative implementations of GEs developed in FI-WARE and therefore may replace a GE implementation developed in FI-WARE within a particular FI-WARE Instance." However, given the current state of the GE deliverables, there are severe doubts about how a FI-WARE instance ("platform") could be built from the GEs without a massive amount of "imagination" and tweaking to make them work together. There are also severe doubts about how a "Future Internet Application" could be portable across different FI-WARE Instances that implement the (same set of?) GEs that the Future Internet Application relies on. The GEs as currently defined are not, by themselves, implementable in the sense of delivering a practical software solution ("platform"). This is compounded by the difficulty of understanding what is really meant by a "coherent" set of GEs. Some GEs seem to have closer inter-relationships than others. Notwithstanding the (useful) clarifications and information orally provided at the review meeting, the inadequate and indeed scarce information within these specifications and the discrepancies between the Technical Roadmap and the available GE contents lead the reviewers to cast doubts on the project achievement so far, and its prospect. FI-WARE failed to meet its milestones for Month 12. Given the above, technical progress of the project for the first year is unacceptable. Moreover, any further delay is likely to significantly risk integrity of the entire FI-PPP and the smooth transition to Phase 2. The consortium made a generally positive and concerted effort so far as the review meeting is concerned. It presented itself as a credible team. The verbal presentations made at the meeting were typically more informative and explanatory than the written deliverables would lead readers to expect (some material within the presentation, such as the matrix of use cases using GEs, is highly appreciated by the reviewers). With evident technical capability, but lack of timely and quality delivery, managerial action is an absolute and urgent must for an accelerated FI-WARE recovery, and to ensure that the FI-PPP programme will deliver meaningful innovations. Collaboration with Use Case projects appears to be improving markedly thanks to key face-to-face training weeks, and enhancements to the way the Fusion Forge system is managed. However, there are still significant issues concerning the processing and documentation of the requirements/backlogs. A main conclusion from the review is that the Use Cases requirements are still not considered as high priority by FI-WARE. Feedback from Use Case projects, including implications for the technology perspective and choices made by FI-WARE, should be (more visibly) taken into account and demonstrated as such. Traceability is crucial for the credibility of the FI-WARE technical deliverables and uptake beyond the consortium; and accountability is required to justify financing from the public purse. The recently conducted architecture training weeks should be used as a stepping stone towards building an FI-PPP "culture" between all Programme participants. More such sessions should be planned, particularly around the test-bed integration deployment and use of the DevComE toolset. For its own part, DevComE is presently a positive highlight of the project. Integration planning for the test-bed is sound and detailed. The testing and the integration activities are among the project highlights. Both are carefully planned and well specified. As the development of the GEs is delayed, the integration activities still lack concreteness in terms of specific scenarios in which several of the GEs will be involved, which is a pity. Work undertaken regarding communication and dissemination is showing significant advancement, albeit with still substantial opportunity for improvement. Given the overall delay in the work plan, the postponement of many key deliverables, and the insufficient quality (and quantity) of the technical specifications, the reviewers consider that the resources were not utilized effectively within the first project year. The consortium has put reasonable effort into analysing and positioning FI-WARE in the current market context. The exploitation within the scope of "Smart Cities" is promising and welcome, but the Use Cases projects should be targeted as prime users. The business strategy is however absent, in so far that no credible and preliminary quantified business case has been presented yet. The consortium's position that the business case will arrive in the second year of the project is a matter of serious concerns; for example, the reviewers have the strong impression that nobody in the consortium has any notion of the overall amount of investment required to take FI-WARE results to the market, and the work presented is clearly (still) lacking substantive input from the business departments of the industrial partners. Despite the extensive comments in the Month 6 Review Report and notwithstanding the voluminous deliverable D11.2.1, there is still no unified or compelling marketing message, including no compelling unique selling proposition, of the FI-WARE results. The individual exploitation plans of the partners are timid. There is inadequate consideration of third party development and SME exploitation at the business level. The globalisation dimension of the exploitation plan is unconvincing. The consortium is reminded that the success of FI-WARE depends on the delivery of a genuine global solution, exploitable by partners inside and outside the consortium and beyond Europe. In summary, there is a glaring and alarming discrepancy between the high ambitions of FI-WARE given in the DoW and the very limited perspective of exploitation offered so far. The reviewers are disappointed that many of the recommendations made - dating back to the Month 6 review or even earlier - have not been sufficiently considered. Additionally, the reviewers are frustrated by the pattern of (extremely) late submission of the majority of the deliverables, and hastily communicated rescheduling of other deliverables with debatable arguments. Such behaviour is not acceptable in the business world; it is equally unacceptable in the context of European collaborative activity, especially in view of the public funding involved. b. Recommendations concerning the period under review The following deliverables require re-submission: * D2.3.1 by Month 15 (from Month 9 review) * D2.4.1 by Month 15 (from Month 9 review) * D2.1.2 by Month 18 * D3.1.1 by Month 18 * D4.1.1 by Month 18 * D5.1.1 by Month 18 * D6.1.1 by Month 18 * D7.1.1 by Month 18 * D8.1.1 by Month 18 * D11.1.1 by Month 18 * D11.2.1 by Month 18 * D11.3.1 by Month 18 The following recommendations are reiterated from the Month 6 review report (with the timeframe for R[1][2]1 adjusted in light of the Month 9 review) and were expected to be addressed in a satisfactory manner by the Month 12 review (original recommendations re-produced in italics): R [1-3]1. Given FI-WARE's intent to remain domain neutral, a comprehensive technology map must be created that clearly and unambiguously illustrates the relationships between all Generic Enablers to be produced by FI-WARE. This was expected to be documented in deliverable D2.3.1 originally due Month 9, for which re-submission is now due Month 15. Still to be addressed in the forthcoming resubmission of D2.3.1 due Month 15. As regards the "transparent encompassing architecture" for FI-WARE as a whole also asked for already in the first recommendation of the review report at M3, we advise the consortium to keep in mind and log this recommendation, and re-visit it in 2013, after the projects selected under Phase 2 have joined the FI PPP. R [1-3]3. Ensure meaningful interaction with standards bodies including Internet-related standards groups such as the IETF, the W3C, the IEEE, the ITU-T, the OMA, and the 3GPP/2. This is expected to be reported in deliverable D12.3.2 due Month 12 and/or deliverable D11.4.1 due Month 9. Still to be addressed in the forthcoming D11.4.2 due Month 15. R [1-3]6. Ensure there is a focus on attracting a development community for FI-WARE, and not only within the FI-PPP, but where possible within the partner organisations and the open community of potential users. This is expected to be considered in relation to deliverable D2.5.1 and reported in deliverable D12.2.2. Still to be addressed in the forthcoming D2.5.1. R [1-3]7. As there is substantial reliance on external technology sources, e.g., other FP7 projects and open source projects, contingencies should be prepared which address what actions to take should those projects fail to deliver, or are delayed with planned delivery upon which FI-WARE depends. This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2 due Month 12. The sourcing of technology is still not sufficiently clear. Contingency planning is still not adequately provided for or documented in D1.1.2. Please provide an adequate plan in the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. R [1-3]8. There is a reasonable likelihood that FI-WARE chapters will be unable to achieve all that they would like to. A risk mitigation strategy should be put in place for this, with thought given in advance on how the project plans to prioritise resources if insufficient resources are available to cope with all planned work. This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2. The consortium is reminded that effort and funding allocations in the DoW are indicative and not sacrosanct. A robust risk management strategy is still missing from D1.1.2. Please provide such a strategy in the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. R [1-3]9. Make sustained effort to enrol the support of stakeholders from the business and marketing departments of all major commercial partners in the project. External to the consortium, dissemination should go considerably beyond the "traditional groups" that are usually targeted for dissemination in FP7 projects. This concerns both the RTD communities and the business communities at large, within as well as outside Europe. Consumer organisations should also be considered and inputs be sought, to make sure that the FI-PPP results will be successfully adopted by the mass market. This is expected to be reported in deliverable D12.2.2. Progress has been made in relation to dissemination. The active involvement and support of the business and marketing personnel from the industrial project partners is still largely absent. R [1-3]10. Ensure that planning of the Open Calls starts early and the Open Calls are inclusive enough to attract any prospective submitters including specialist SMEs (without making a priori assumptions about who might be interested in the calls). The Open Calls should be used as a strategic opportunity for disseminating FI-WARE to FI stakeholders and engaging their interest in FI-WARE outputs. The Open Call processes and experience, including lessons learnt, should be documented and assimilated by the consortium for subsequent calls, and included in the relevant editions of deliverable D1.2.x for reporting and auditing purposes. Please take into full account our remarks on the management and administration of the Open Calls in Section 1a of the previous (M6) Review Report, and clarify the rationale for the selection of the topic(s) for the forthcoming first Open Call and to what extent the use case projects have a voice in the topic selection in the first and subsequent calls. The reviewers are still awaiting the reporting of the first Open Call. Progress to be re-assessed in relation to the planning/reporting of the next Open Call in the forthcoming D1.3.2. R [1-3]11. The reviewers cannot over-emphasise the importance of exploitation planning, including detailed documentation of IPR management. In our view, this is also intimately linked to enablement of third party exploitation. Please refer to our remarks in Sections 1a and 1b of the previous (M6) Review Report. It is obvious that high expectations are placed by the reviewers on deliverables D11.2.1 and D2.5.1 due Month 12. Please do not treat this as a paper exercise for satisfying the reviewers. Instead, they should be treated as initial blueprints for realistic business models backed by genuine commitment from especially the industrial partners. Unsatisfactory addressed. Exploitation planning lacks credibility and market traction. To be addressed in the resubmission of D11.2.1 due M18. R [1-3]12. All future deliverables should continue to be made available to the reviewers in pdf format. They should also be submitted on time. The consortium should investigate whether posting such files on its website or wiki might provide value for potential users, in addition to the wiki pages (at least those files relating to key deliverables). Please report the findings of the investigation at the next review. Unsatisfactory addressed. Large numbers of deliverables not submitted on time, yet again. Others have been rescheduled in a hasty manner. The reviewers strongly recommend corrective actions. Additionally, the reviewers request that project deliverables be made available as a consolidated file for future reviews. The consortium has no inclination to make deliverables available in a file format, other than to the EC and reviewers for pure compliance purposes, after evident resistance. The need to investigate the usefulness of such files to would-be users was dismissed. R [1-3]13. Improve the usefulness and attractiveness of the project website: make the information (even) more easy to find, bearing in mind that users might not be familiar with the FI-PPP; enhance the website as a marketing tool to would-be third parties and 'customers' of FI-WARE results (make the website answer the question to companies not involved in EU funded activities: why should I be interested in what FI-WARE is doing, and what is in it for me?). Consider the use of creditable Search Engine Optimization techniques. Unsatisfactorily addressed - no evidence of website improvement as a marketing tool. Significant improvement required for Month 17. The consortium is also encouraged to bring forward the implementation of the FI-WARE GE portal (not in DoW, but highly welcome) currently planned for Year 3. R [1-3]14. Put in place contingencies for loss of key people from the project. This is expected to be documented in deliverable D1.1.2. Recommendation addressed to some degree, for example by involving WP leaders in the management of backlog. Please provide a clear update in the online version of the Project Management Handbook asap. Recommendations still outstanding from the initial review of D2.2.1: * R2: the relationship between GEs and the Specific Enablers needs to be clarified and documented, bearing in mind that the former are potential candidates for standardisation in due course, and the latter are critical from the view point of making business out of FI-WARE results. Documentation is now expected at Month 9 with deliverable D2.3.1. Still to be addressed in the resubmitted version of the D2.3.1 due Month 15. * R9: The requested delivery schedule for the GEs, or at a minimum indication of prioritisation, has not been presented. This is now expected for deliverable D2.4.1 at Month 9. The information should be made visibly available in the public domain. Still not addressed, with mismatches between the Backlog, the Technical Roadmap and the Open Specifications delivered; To be addressed in the resubmitted version of the D2.4.1 due Month 15. c. Recommendations concerning future work R[3]15. Ensure that the quality of the GE specifications is high and consistent. Use GE specification for WP8 as a template for all other WPs. R[3]16. Clean up the backlog, and keep it up to date at all times. Specific resources must be dedicated to this. R[3]17. Focus on delivery of critical-path, high-priority (for the Use Cases) GEs. R[3]18. GE code releases must be synchronized with GE priorities indicated by Use Case projects. R[3]19. Ensure that architectural documentation clearly and unambiguously indicates the trace of source requirements and justification. R[3]20. Transparency and visibility in what was delivered and what is going to be delivered by the consortium in all future FI-WARE Releases. R[3]21. Meeting the "check points" set by the reviewers. For the next period leading up to the M18 review, the reviewers will be monitoring and assessing project progress against the following key "check points", in addition to DoW compliance and assessment of the project deliverables due: 1. Technical Paper including common usage scenarios for the GEs for wide dissemination (incl. to Use Case projects and third parties), month 15 2. Public availability matrix of use cases using the GEs; continuous update of the matrix, month 15 & thereafter 3. FI-WARE software release, month 15 4. Public availability of the SAP GEs in WP3, month 15 (done) 5. Testbed in operation, feedback from UC projects on using the testbed, month 17 6. Enhancement/re-design of the current website for impact creation, month 17 7. Hold additional architectural weeks, develop training plan for use of the DevComE framework, consider inviting 3rd party developers, month 18 8. Develop and publish a plan for fostering developer communities, month 18 9. Live demonstration of the FI-WARE test-bed with deployed GE software, Next review meeting 10. Presentation by senior business personnel from the main commercial partners of the consortium (at a minimum: TID, SAP, TI, Orange/FT) on corporate plans to bring the FI-WARE key results to the market, Next review meeting R[3]22. For the next period overall project resource allocation should be reviewed to identify the specific weaknesses leading to the failings identified in this review project; resources should be re-planned and re-allocated to rectify the failings where necessary. d. Assessment Unsatisfactory progress (The project has failed to achieve key objectives and/or is not at all on schedule) ============================== Some other considerations: After one year in the project, one may want to evaluate what has been achieved, esp taking into account that 12 MEuro has been spent. A specific feature of the first reporting period, and a direct result of the delays, is that efforts have been spent on tasks that did not result in submitted deliverables. The economy, effectiveness and efficiency of these efforts can therefore not be evaluated. More importantly, after one year in the project, one may want to evaluate what can be realistically achieved at the end of the project: - The status and maturity of single GEs differ a lot. More consistency and maturity in the specification of GEs needs to be achieved. The litmus test is that these specifications need to be sufficiently mature and complete so that independent software developers can use them to develop implementations that are interchangeable. Prospect: good. - It is not clear to what extent the GE Open Specifications satisfy the requirements from use cases, FI-WARE organisations, or otherwise. There is a risk that at the end of the project the GE Open Specifications do not satisfy the requirements of the use cases. - The baseline assets of each individual GE are not clear. Partly because of this, the roadmap is not clear. At the end of the project, there will be reference implementations, no doubt, but it is not clear to what extent the GE Open Specifications follow the existing baseline assets or v.v. There is a risk that the reference implementations do not satisfy the requirements of the use cases. - The IPR protection of the reference implementations is unclear. At the end of the project, the use cases need clarity on this. It is essential that this information becomes available as soon as possible. - Likewise, the exploitation plans of the owners of the reference implementations are unclear. At the end of the project, the use cases need clarity on this. It is essential that this information becomes available as soon as possible. - The division of budgets in FI-WARE is (largely) based on the existence of baseline assets. The more baseline assets a partner brought into the project, the larger its budget in FI-WARE. The advantage is that the work does not start from scratch. It is likely that these baseline assets are typically proprietary solutions. It can be expected that partners will give priority to their baseline assets, further developing these assets, and give less priority to fulfilling use case requirements. Although access to these assets by use case projects after the end of the FI-WARE project is addressed by clause 41, the exact conditions for access, the availability of the assets, and their maturity are unknown. This leaves use cases, possible FI-WARE Instance providers, and third party application developers in an uncertain situation, and clarity is necessary. - There is a high risk that current developments on GE reference implementations do not fulfil the requirements of the use cases. This could be accepted to some extent if these reference implementations would be based on clear requirements from the business departments of the technology providers, and if there were clear exploitation plans for these reference implementations. In such situation, usefulness to use cases would be offset by wide availability and accessibility. However, at the moment there is a high risk that at the end of the FI-WARE project the reference implementations will not fulfil the requirements from the use cases AND will not be accessible. The month 18 review and the Call 2 evaluation will provide an opportunity to analyse the situation with respect to a) the FI-WARE GEs and their reference implementations, b) the priorities of the phase 2 use cases, and c) the commitments of the FI-WARE beneficiaries. Regarding the FI-WARE GEs and their reference implementations, information is needed a.o. concerning: - The final list of GEs for which Open Specifications will be written - The extent to which these GEs fulfil requirements (from all sources), providing justification and accountability - For each GE: the reference implementation(s) of the GE - For each GE reference implementation: the baseline asset(s) upon which the reference implementation will be based, the current status, the owner, the relation to other GE (reference implementations) Regarding the phase 2 use cases: - The list of GEs the phase 2 use cases plan to use, and their priority - The list of GE reference implementations the phase 2 use cases plan to use, and their priority Regarding the commitment of the FI-WARE beneficiaries: - For each GE reference implementation: the conditions under which it will be available for FI-PPP programme participants and third parties beyond the lifetime of FI-WARE With respect to the last point, stated intentions in confidential exploitation plans are not sufficient. True commitment and therefore true assurance of the use cases and third parties of the sustainability of their efforts building on FI-WARE can be shown via e.g. a public statement by the GE reference implementation IPR holders. Such a public statement could follow lines as sketched below: - "Our developments in FI-WARE/FI-PPP will be made available as open-source, and/or - Our developments in FI-WARE will be proprietary, conforming to the GE Open Specifications, and we guarantee that they will be available on the market as of [date] under FRAND conditions and will be available for at least [y] years. The exact conditions will be specified within [x] months. In case our companies determine the product will no longer be commercially offered, the source code will be made available as open source and donated to [xyz], and/or - Company X is developing an implementation of a certain GE. Within FI-WARE, an open source reference implementation of the same GE is being developed. Company X builds a proprietary implementation, outside the FI-WARE project, using own funds, and/or - Our companies encourage the development of multiple implementations of a certain GE, will develop a reference implementation for each of the specified GEs within the context of the FI-WARE project, using public money, and will develop additional proprietary implementations [for GEs g,h,k] using own funds - We commit to safeguard the evolution and nature of the GEs for at least [x] years after the FI-PPP programme. - Etc" ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: From lorant.farkas at nsn.com Tue Jul 24 13:49:49 2012 From: lorant.farkas at nsn.com (Farkas, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:49:49 -0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpa] On formula for delivering software and Installation/Administration Guidelines marked as PP and linked to GEs In-Reply-To: <500DCFB7.4020404@tid.es> References: <500D8E9A.4050506@tid.es> <500DCFB7.4020404@tid.es> Message-ID: <93D28BDF64839C468B848D14227151A203C10934@FIESEXC014.nsn-intra.net> Hi Juanjo, We are not able to tell from which IP addess range the commission will access the docs&binaries. Miguel told us yesterday to disclose the IP address from which we will access the VM, because all other IP addresses will be rejected. I sense a conflict here. Thanks & Br, Lorant From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext Juanjo Hierro Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 12:27 AM To: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-wpa] On formula for delivering software and Installation/Administration Guidelines marked as PP and linked to GEs Dear colleagues, I have had a long conversation with our PO this afternoon and we managed to agree on the formula for delivering the software and Installation/Administration Guidelines linked to the GEs that are marked as PP. The agreement is that both deliverables can be made available to the EC for auditing/reviewing purposes on the servers (indeed, VMs) where the software will actually be hosted, this meaning either servers located in the datacenter linked to the FI-WARE Testbed or remote servers (this only applying to those cases where it was agreed that the GE would not be deployed on the FI-WARE Testbed datacenter). We just need to generate a document that identifies the server where the software (binaries) and Installation/Administration Guides will be available and also explains how the EC can get access to the binaries and Installation/Administration Guides. Note that software must be binaries and not VM images. I have push for adoption of this solution as a mean to cover all the concerns expressed by some of the partners. Based on the Collaboration Agreement signed by all parties, FI-WARE GE software binaries and Installation/Administration Guides will not be made available to FI-PPP partners unless they: * request them in writing * require them because they need them for execution of their respective projects within the FI-PPP * can explain that using them "as a Service" through a well defined API (from the FI-WARE Testbed or any other alternative hosting facility) is not enough * an agreement is signed between the GE owner and the FI-PPP partner requesting the software Note that while it's unlikely that a UC project may require access to binaries and Installation/Administration Guides in this first phase of the program ... I expect that these three conditions may fulfilled by several trials in phase 2 and 3 of the FI-PPP. Nevertheless, there will be some few cases where the above conditions would apply even in the current, first phase of the program. It is clear regarding the Cloud Proxy GE in my opinion, but maybe also true with respect to some IoT gateway -related GEs or other GEs that UC projects may need to deploy in local infrastructures. We will keep the "FI-WARE PPP Restricted" project only accessible to FI-WARE partners and the EC (plus reviewers). We will also probably rename it as "FI-WARE Review". GE owners are free to officially deliver their software (binaries) and Installation/Administration Guides on the SVN and docman tools of that project. They may also deliver only foreground software there. This would be an alternative to creation of a dedicated space, at the servers where the software is hosted, where the software should easily be identifiable against any other software. Actually, we will deliver a document to the EC where we will declare that the software is available in the SVN and docman system of this project in FusionForge. Please let us know what of the two options you will choose before end of this week. That way, we will be able to organize the final package of deliverables. In the case that any UC project requires access to binaries and Installation/Administration Guides of a given FI-WARE GE, the above conditions should be met and then we will discuss how the software should be delivered. Hope it helps. Don't hesitate to ask any doubt or question you may have. Cheers, -- 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: