On 21/02/13 16:27, Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard wrote:
Find the detailed comments from SAPin the accompanying Word document (both as changes and comments).
The new version is better than the last one, however, there is still room for improvement. We still miss an alignment with the existing collaboration agreement. This is unfortunate, because with such alignment, a lot of discussion would not be needed. A lot of things are already addressed in the existing collaboration agreement. If, for example, the chairman of the Architecture Board ignores certain tasks of the Architecture Board, this is not the fault of the Collaboration Agreement.
I don't understand what you pretend to state with the last statement but it's simply unjustified and impertinent. The chairman of the Architecture Board (me) perfectly knows what the Collaboration Agreements establishes regarding tasks of the Architecture Board, among other things because it was me, together with Thomas M. Bohnert (maybe you remember him) who wrote the list of tasks that was inserted in the first draft of the Collaboration Agreement and followed up what finally got there approved. May be you ignored that.
I haven't been the editor of the governance document. Probably, if I had been the editor, I had copy the existing tasks in the CA or a summary of them. However, I have always assumed that it was not the intention that it maps word by word with the Collaboration Agreement. Since the idea is to add the text the DoW, which as far as I understand PREVAILS over the Collaboration Agreement, I have always understood that:
* We should make sure that there are no tasks described in the governance document that enter into contradiction with any task description of the Collaboration Agreement. If so, we should carefully look at it.
* We should add whatever we have learned, based on experience, that needs to be added and was missing in the Collaboration Agreement
Regarding the first point, I'm happy to add all the tasks that were there in the initial Collaboration Agreement. As I have said, I co-authored that list.
Regarding extension of the list of tasks, I believe it is appropriate to add tasks at the light of experience from phase 1. Preventing addition of new tasks that we know would enhance performance of the program would be a mistake. In particular, we learned that we have to be a bit pushy regarding adoption of FI-WARE GEs by UC projects. One of the mistakes in phase 1 recognized even by the own EC was that there was not a mandate on UC projects to really make their best using the most of FI-WARE.
Question then is how to add these tasks as recognized tasks of the AB and create a legal binding. Here, it is where some companies like Telefonica are, simply, more flexible that other companies I guess. We have always understood that the DoW prevails over the Collaboration Agreement (same as the EC, BTW). Therefore we just need to add the new tasks to the DoW. Fixing the Collaboration Agreement is something that may come aftewards with no urgency. This process would be a kind of "fast-track adoption" process for some changes in the governance model.
A lot of the description of the tasks of all boards are missing. This creates confusion about the tasks of each board .It constitutes a change of the collaboration agreement through the backdoor. Speaking from a legal perspective, this is alarming, as there are partners, who do not want to stick to the rules they have agreed to two years ago.
As I have said, adding the tasks that were there in the Collaboration Agreement shouldn't be an issue. Adding the governance document to the DoW may constitute a way to incorporate enhancements (like addition of some new tasks in some governance boides) through the backdoor, yes. But a pragmatic way to implement such changes ("fast-track adoption"). We didn't consider the tasks we are now adding at the time we wrote the Collaboration Agreement simply because we didn't have the experience we now have.
Especially, the Secretariat (run by Concord) tries to get rid of administrative tasks.
Honestly, I don't know what administrative tasks you think are not being considered also in the governance document. My understanding is that the so-called PMO in the governance document is the secretariat ...
The idea to elect advisory board members which have the skill set required for the EIB has not been discussed. It has not been discussed if there are other ways to improve the alignment of the FI PPP Boards and the collaboration of the partners with the partners.
The Executive Industry Board is a new figure demanded by some partners as well as the EC. We are fine with its inclusion at Telefonica. My understanding is that the "Advisory Board" described in the Collaboration Agreement may be considered as split into two groups, one being the EIB and another one the sill named Advisory Board. Therefore, we are not changing anything fundamental in the Collaboration Agreement.
Of course, you may claim this is another "change through the backdoor" because we are changing, among other things, the number of members. But here again the point I made regarding "fast-track adoption" of changes also applies.
There are still overlaps between the boards and working groups. Concord and its Secretariat are trying to receive extra money from the other projects in order to perform the tasks as assigned to them in their respective GA. We assume, that Concord should be able to execute its tasks according to the funding they receive from the EC and according to its DOW.
The role of the chairman of the Architecture Board as mediator creates a potential conflict of interest. The Chairman of the Architecture Board represents Fi-Ware as Fi-Wares chief architect. The setup creates a builtin conflict of interest.
Honestly, speaking, I don't care about adding or not this "mediator" role. Trying to mediate is waste of time when a given party in the controversy simply doesn't want to hear. At the end of the day, what really matters is the spirit of collaboration reached between members of the AB. So far, in phase 1, things worked pretty well as it has been recognized multiple times. This was because we managed to create a spirit of collaboration where pragmatism and forward-looking prevailed.
For me, what is relevant is that decisions in the Architecture Board are taken by consensus (as indeed the Collaboration Agreement states).
At the last page, they say, the wording should be only a supplement to the Collaboration Agreement. Then it should be no problem to include the following wording:
„The concrete tasks, composition and processes of the FI PPP Boards are regulated in the Collaboration Agreement, each beneficiary must sign. Hence, with regard to the concrete governance of the respective boards and roles, the FI PPP Collaboration Agreement prevails. “
Literally adding this sentence may go against adding tasks to governance bodies, or introducing enhancements in the governance, for example. How do you propose to add such enhancements otherwise (fast enough) ?
As to Telefonicas remarks as outlined in the mail, bullets 1-4:
1. We do understand that you want to eliminate bureaucracy, but who decides what constitutes a “delicate” matter ?. SAP would be fine for skipping the “2 weeks” notice if there is an automatic veto right for decisions that are introduced “by ambush” (the effect of the veto by any partner disagreeing would be to automatically put it back onto the next SB meeting with proper advance notice). That way unanimous stuff could pass without fuss and the rest could be resolved by the numbers.
That seems ok to me so regarding this comment we can present a common position if others also agree.
2. Fine with SAP
Great. However ... how do you solve the issue that the proposed task is not listed in the Collaboration Agreement ? :-)
3. SAP agrees that the notion of an “overall business plan” is indeed ill-conceived
Would you agree with introducing the concept of "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan" or have any other alternative proposal ?
4. We have not yet analyzed that part sufficiently.
Ok
Best regards,
-- Juanjo
Regards,
Burkhard
Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz
Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG
SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany
T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com<mailto:burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com>
www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/>
Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail.
Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich 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.
From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2013 14:12
To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: Re: FI-PPP Phase 2 Status of governance work - Revision 3 of the governance model
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
________________________________
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/20130221/3e18092e/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy