Hi all, Regarding the third revision of the governance model I would like to transparently share with you the comments submitted by Telefonica. Of course, we have make it clear they were just comments from our side because we are still analyzing it at project level. In this respect, we have made it clear that FI-WARE hasn't approved the proposed governance model yet. I would kindly ask you to share your position regarding the current version of the document asap. In addition, we would rather appreciate if you can tell us whether you agree or not with the comments made by Telefónica, which I would summarize as follows: * We propose that the SB do not need to follow the defined procedure (2-weeks notice in advance previous to each SB) for making decisions in all cases. Certainly it is fine to request following such procedure in delicate matters, but not for any decision. Otherwise, we are bringing too much burocracy in the governance. * We propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". This was something that was already happening in phase 1, but you never know what may come with new projects so we believe it is important that the AB takes the role of actually monitoring that recommendations on usage of FI-WARE GEs (to be provided by FI-WARE) are actually implemented * We believe that we have to be careful when we use terms such as "overall FI-PPP business plan". We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... what is important is that we define a model of sustainability of the FI-PPP results that enables companies to implement their business plans, without the need to get them all synchronized. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. This is realistic, any other thing sounds like "wishful thinking". * We believe that our contribution to overall promotion through the third FI-WARE Open Call should be recognized and given the right value. We are bringing a lot through it that will go for the sake of the whole program (in some cases, bordering activities that we may have argued that should have been carried out by others) so therefore we cannot be asked for another 5-10% of budget for program-level activities. We can understand this is asked to new projects, and certainly the EC should secure their contribution, but that is not our case. I propose to arrange a short confcall right after Part II of the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall next Monday for closing a position. Meanwhile, it would be nice that everyone circulates their comments and also provides feeback about Telefonica's comments. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es> email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto: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: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:16:29 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es> To: David Kennedy <kennedy at eurescom.eu><mailto:kennedy at eurescom.eu>, Lakaniemi Ilkka <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi><mailto:ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi> CC: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu> <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>, jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es> Dear David and Ilkka, Please find enclosed Telefonica's comments on revision 3 of the governance model. Sorry for the delay sending them. Since you have shared revision 3 of the governance model with the EC already, I put them on copy. The amendments we propose regarding the AB is the most critical one. Also the comment on procedures for decisions at the SB. Both go for adopting effective and efficient improvements to the FI-PPP management structure. There are comments that have to do with suggestion for rewording of sentences that refer to "program-level business plans". I believe it is more accurate to talk about ”overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan” because sustainability of the ecosystem we aim to build is something we pursue. Such overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan should be formulated in a way that it enables major stakeholders to develop their own individual business plans coexisting with others’. Saying that we are going to define an overall business plan is too much but, I would say more, there may be partners who may wish to accelerate their business plan and not get delayed by others. An overall FI-PPP sustainability model/plan is what should enable these players to actually accelerate their business plans and show the path to others. Rest of comments inserted in the document are less critical. A very important comment, despite not inserted in the text, is that Telefonica believes that the budget that FI-WARE is already putting on the table, through the 3rd Open Call, namely 4,2 M€ for activities dealing with promotion of FI-WARE and creation of an innovation ecosystem bringing SMEs and entrepreneurs should be already considered a relevant contribution to the overall success of the program. This besides our contribution with resources participating in the existing WGs and governance bodies, the offering of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab to third parties, etc. Therefore, asking for additional 5-10% of the budget for additional program-level activities would be totally unfair and may impact our efforts trying to deliver a FI-WARE platform that technically brings what developers need. I'm pretty sure that if all the rest of projects, altogether, bring on the table another 4.2 M€ of funding for program-level promotional activities besides resources similar to those FI-WARE is already contributing on other WGs, we can achieve a lot. Telefonica needs to understand how our contribution to the overall program success, through the launch of the 3rd Open Call, is going to be measured in terms of contribution to program-level activities before approving a text that mentions contribution of 5-10% budget to such program-level activities. This is, of course, just Telefonica's comments. We haven't yet finalized our internal discussions as to present a position of the FI-WARE project. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es> email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto: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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130221/640b0a27/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213 comments by Telefonica.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 288003 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130221/640b0a27/attachment.docx>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy