[Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpa] [Fiware-wpl] Draft agenda proposal for the FI-WARE Project Review

[stefano de panfilis]

dear juanjo,

some additional points about exploitation.

As explained before the review in Seville, we will not do the same speech
> during the review in Brussels especially for the exploitation part so what
> is really expected. Going through all individual exploitation plans would
> take hours and could push reviewers to ask new questions if all the
> exploitations plans are not aligned. Could you clarify what are your
> expectations regarding this point?
>
>
>   I agree we shouldn't go for just reviewing individual exploitation
> plans.   This is a point on which I would leave Jose the actual leadership.
>   I will try to support but my throughput is limited.   My vision on the
> matter is that we should elaborate more on the ideas about how to build an
> ecosystem leveraging on:
>
>    - The FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab concept
>    - The FI-WARE Catalogue
>    - The active role that the Capacity Building project and the Trial
>    projects should assume regarding support to deployment of applications
>    being experimented in the Open Innovation Lab
>    - A rather proactive plan, with enough resources assigned, to attract
>    the wide community of developers.   As you know, here the EC is willing to
>    devote the budget booked for the 3rd Open Call on promotion activities.   I
>    believe that this is a great idea because certainly setting up and
>    implementing the kind of ambitious plan you would need to put in place to
>    boost awareness first, adoption later, by the wide community of developers,
>    would need to invest resources and skills not foreseen initially in the
>    FI-WARE proposal (that's why using Open Call funds would qualify, I guess)
>    - Ability to connect to the ICT Labs (I rather believe this won't make
>    the difference, but it may be worth to consider)
>    - Push for allocation of funding regarding development of FI-WARE
>    based applications in national R&D programs (this way trying to expand the
>    number of SMEs that wold get funded because of experimenting with FI-WARE,
>    going beyond was is planned in phase 3 of the FI-PPP)
>    - Push the EC for adopting FI-WARE in some of its procurement
>    processes (why not ?   It's time also to ask the EC "ala JFK" "don't ask
>    what FI-WARE can do for you but what you can do for FI-WARE", and certainly
>    the EC can do more than just bring some funding, which is not the most
>    critical/difficult part)
>    - Push the EC for adopting FI-WARE in some other areas:
>       - what about the Cloud infrastructure that the EC is planning to
>       put in place as replacement/extension of the EDGEE grid ?
>       - what about pushing for making regular FP7 projects to include
>       clauses in their DoWs regarding collaboration with FI-WARE and carrying out
>       their experiments on the Open Innovation Lab ?   They "force" current FP7
>       projects (at least in the Software and Services Unit) to include statements
>       about collaboration with other FP7 projects in the Communicaton,
>       Collaboration and Dissemination WPs, so they can do this.
>
>
>   We can sell this as joint expoitation plan.   See the slides I present
> in Sevilla (second part) for reference.
>

somehow i do agree on all the above points, but this are credible only if
there is real committment by the industrial fi-ware players, i.e. US!

what i want to say here is that if the gei owners show a concrete plan
based on a clear "terms and conditions of usage" of their gei than
everything is concrete otherwise is the usual bla bla nice even
interesting, but nothing more than bla bla
from the seville pre-review it is clear that the ec this time really wants
something more: they see the possibility that real technologies migth come
out from an initiative initiated by them and certainly they do not want to
loose this possibility. peter clearly stated we are discussing becouse this
time we have something working!!!

in fact, dear juanjo, how we can ask the ec to use and adopt fi-ware
technologies if the companies who owns the implementation do not committ
behind those technologies? this can only be achieved by stating clearly
"terms and conditions of usage".

so, i'm afraid, individual plans from gei owners not only are needed, but
mandatory!

for what concerns engineering this is very clear: provision of our assets
as floss and professional rates for technical support.
is that so complicated to ask all the others to elaborate their plans?

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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20121109/2e085560/attachment.html>