Dear Juanjo and all We attach IBM's comments in two parts. First, let me point out that most of our comments in the previous version (attached) were not included in the updated version, so we request to make these changes in this draft. I'm sure you'll agree that it's important to ensure that all comments are approriately represented, to allow a meaningful discussion between the partners on this topic. Here are the points again: section 2.3 - The Architecture Board (AB) will be in charge of advise on the technical aspects and implementation of the programme. section 3.2 - The SB approves and defines reviews the overall coordination among projects and milestones for the projects. section 3.5 - The individual projects commit to reserve reasonable funds and allocate staff for each working group within their respective work plans. The PC can not "mediate" between the parties. It can not replace the dispute resolution mechanism in the Collaboration Agreement. The PC does not have the authority to make a decision re conflicts between the parties. coordinators can not have a mandate to decide on behalf of the project parties. Please ask to delete the following sentence and any other sentence which provides such mandate. Section 4.2 - PrCs (Project Coordinators - gl) have the responsibility to discuss proposals for SB decisions in their project in good time and to get the mandate from their consortium to to discuss, negotiate and decide on the SB agenda items. .................. Secondly, here are more important comments inline of your email from today ----- Forwarded by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM on 26/02/2013 08:59 AM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es> To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu>, Date: 26/02/2013 08:54 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT for FI-WARE PCC: Fwd: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, We received this letter from the EC on Friday. Apologizes for not forwarding it to you earlier. I believe that we should try to come up with a position on behalf of FI-WARE. It shouldn't be so difficult. For this reason, I will call for a confcall tomorrow. Please make sure you attend with a representative. I have setup the following doodle for closing the best timeslot but please be aware that I will close the doodle poll at 13:00 CET today and then I will announce the final timeslot after that. So far, I have only seen the comments by SAP as well as those from Telefonica. At least, we should be able to forward to the EC: a list of comments in which we can reach consensus a list of points where different partners have different views My interpretation is that we may reach consensus regarding the following points: Include the list of tasks that were already there in the Collaboration Agreement in the list of task assigned to the SB, AB and PMO (Secretariat) of the governance document, because all of the tasks in the Collaboration Agreement are still valid. New tasks may be added based on lessons learned from phase 1. IBM: ok Replace any reference to mediation roles because, at the end of the day, they are not so relevant. Emphasis the fact that decisions should be made by consensus. Agree. IBM: This point is Critical to us. Skip the ?2 weeks? notice regarding points in the agenda of the SB 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. -- question aside ... IBM: Not clear to us. Propose that the AB also "Monitors how recommendations on usage of FI-WARE Generic Enablers are implemented by UC projects". IBM: OK Revise the parts where there are reference to "overall FI-PPP business plan". There will be many companies and many different business plans, most probably implemented at different speeds ... We propose to talk about an "overall FI-PPP sustainability plan which enables the development of the individual business plans of the different stakeholders" ... such a model would allow each company to implement its own business plans, without the need to get synchronized with the rest. This allows that some actor can move faster without waiting for the rest, everyone will be able to make progress at its own pace. IBM: OK Also regarding adjustments in the budget to support global-level activities, particularly dissemination activities, I believe we may agree that FI-WARE is already contributing a significant part of our budget/funding through the FI-WARE 3rd Open Call (4,2 M?) so therefore no further contributions besides participating in Dissemination Working Group meetings should be necessary. IBM: OK My interpretation regarding different views on some specific points is that we only differ in which document should prevail, the DoW or the Collaboration Agreement. Some parties (e.g., Telefonica) believe we can use modifications of the DoW to fast-track changes which may later be incorporated in the Collaboration Agreement, while other parties (I understand SAP) believe that no changes should be introduced anywhere other than in the Collaboration Agreement which should be referred as the main source and prevail over contents of the DoW. IBM: We strongly support SAP position on this. I would like to discuss, during our PCC meeting tomorrow, what we can forward to the EC as a summary of the position of FI-WARE, hopefully a summary like the above. I will also send an email to the rest of partners in FI-WARE so that they can send us their input prior to our PCC call. 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Future Internet PPP - Negotiation of Phase 2 Projects Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:05:27 +0000 From: <Maria.MOTA-VIEGAS at ec.europa.eu> To: <gavras at eurescom.eu>, <fiona.williams at ericsson.com>, <maurizio.cecchi at telecomitalia.it>, <pieter.vanderlinden at technicolor.com>, <sergio.gusmeroli at txtgroup.com>, <sjaak.wolfert at wur.nl> CC: <dario.avallone at eng.it>, <stephan.guido at siemens.com>, <christophe.diot at technicolor.com>, <petra.turkama at aalto.fi>, <ilkka.lakaniemi at aalto.fi>, <federico.alvarez at upm.es>, <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>, <Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu> , <Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu>, <andreas.tegge at sap.com>, <brigitte.cardinael at orange.com>, <Carlos.rcocina at telefonica.com>, <didier_arnaud.bourse at alcatel-lucent.com>, <Jean-Dominique.Meunier at technicolor.com>, <frederick.jeske-schoenhoven at siemens.com>, <Hans.Einsiedler at telekom.de>, <Joachim.Hoenig at telekom.de>, <johannes.riedl at siemens.com>, <jose-maria.cavanillas at atosresearch.eu>, <jhierro at tid.es>, <julie.marguerite at thalesgroup.com>, <scoca at telecomitalia.be>, <luigi.gambardella at telecomitalia.it>, <livdo at tid.es>, <magnus.madfors at ericsson.com>, <marc.vancoppenolle at alcatel-lucent.com>, <stefano.depanfilis at eng.it>, <s.fischer at sap.com>, <thierry.nagellen at orange.com>, <vincent.marcatte at orange.com>, <walter.van.der.weiden at ericsson.com>, <werner.mohr at nsn.com> Our ref.: Ares(2013)232706 Dear Colleague, Please find attached our views how best to proceed in order to bring the discussion on the FI-PPP Governance to a fruitful and productive conclusion. Thank you. Best regards, JESUS VILLASANTE Head of Unit European Commission DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3: Net Innovation BU25 3/81 B-1049 Brussels/Belgium +32 2 29-63521 Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu 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[attachment "Note JV to FIPPP COs on Gov (120213)_RB.doc.pdf" deleted by Galit Leider/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "Proposed FI PPP Governance Model Rev-3_190213.docx.pdf" deleted by Galit Leider/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130226/3b87e406/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 1285 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130226/3b87e406/attachment.jpe> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure_Feb 11 2013_IBM.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 311611 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130226/3b87e406/attachment.obj>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy