From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 2 09:45:01 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:45:01 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50615C0F6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A016FA730@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: Dear all We have an audio conference next January 8th where we shall be receiving more details about the meeting. We shall see then who is the right people to attend it. BR De: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Enviado el: jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:46 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; fiware-pcc Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 dear jose, i do agree with nuria it is difficult to make a concrete proposal. i think you should ask some more clarifications to understand the role fi-ware migth play at the meeting. what i think, a bit different from nuria, is that the topic will be more concerned on phase 2, and thus topics under discussion clarification will be availability of the ge and their deployment on the testbed as well as to understand if the new uc should (must?) use our infrastructure to host uc applications or at least part of them. if this is the case i'm available (still ....). ciao, stefano 2012/12/20 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Sorry, we do not have further information so far, except what I have sent to you. BR De: Nuria De-Lama Sanchez [mailto:nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu] Enviado el: jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:17 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 What kind of input do they need from FI-WARE? Are they expecting presentations at technical level (maybe a technical overview of the project for the purpose of informing new projects in Phase II? I think that the participation of the project could vary depending on the kind of discussions that will happen there: for example, synchronization for the purpose of using or deploying infrastructures could require very concrete information on the testbed roadmap (I suppose this could still be explained by you, but maybe more details are needed), another aspect could be the preparation of Phase III, which is something that falls under the responsibility of FI-WARE, the Capacity Building and all the UC projects (and the EC is very much interested in that), which basically involves info on the Open Innovation Lab, communication & dissemination towards third parties, etc. Is there an agenda for the meeting? Do you have more concrete information from the invitation letter sent by the EC? 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 [cid:349045816 at 01072011-319C] ________________________________ 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: jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 13:25 To: fiware-pcc Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 Dear PCC We have received this request from the EC to attend the coordination meeting next February 4th We should decide who is attending. In principle I think I should be there. We have up to 2 seats. Do you think we should need a second representative? BR De: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu] Enviado el: martes, 18 de diciembre de 2012 14:34 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; petra.turkama at aalto.fi; federico.alvarez at upm.es CC: Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu; Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu; Georgios.TSELENTIS at ec.europa.eu; Maria.MOTA-VIEGAS at ec.europa.eu; Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu Asunto: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 Dear colleagues, I write to you in reference to a workshop we will organise on 4-5 February 2013 for which we require the presence of representatives of the projects FI-WARE, CONCORD and INFINITY. The evaluation of call 2 for phase 2 is completed and we are about to invite five use-case projects and one capacity building project for negotiations taking place in January and February 2013. Beyond one-to-one meetings which we will have with the individual consortia, we plan to have a common FI-PPP negotiation workshop on 4-5 February as previously announced already (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/call2/negotiationcall2_en.htm). This workshop will be the opportunity for you to discuss with the new phase 2 projects in detail and ensure that the respective work-plans (DoW) are updated accordingly, as to have a coherent package of projects moving into phase 2. To this end we will provide you with a structured agenda closer to the event, however the workshop will start Monday 4 February at 9:oo am and last until Tuesday 5 February until 17:oo. I would appreciate if you could note down the dates and ensure that up to 2 people from FI-WARE, from CONCORD and from INFINITY will participate to this workshop full-time. Kind regards, Peter [cid:image003.jpg at 01CDE8CD.AD13D430] European Commission - DG CONNECT - Deputy Head of Unit - Net Innovation Telephone: +32 229 91 890 Email: peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2380 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Jan 2 11:56:43 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:56:43 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50615C0F6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A016FA730@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: dear jos? and all, first of all my bets wishes for a wonderful start! here and now i have to say that engineering is in four new projects of phase 2 out of 6, i.e. we are in the capacity building project and in three use case projects. given the role engineering will play in all of those projects and the role i'm playing in fi-ware i think i should go to assure, also from a formal point of view, the best possible sync between fi-ware and the rest. in addition we are in a project of ictlabs which, although very small, will create a link between the fi ppp and the eit world. we can say that this project will really pay the way to what it is expected in phase 3 to happen. of course up to you all to agree on my candidature. ciao, stefano 2013/1/2 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Dear all > > > > We have an audio conference next January 8th where we shall be receiving > more details about the meeting. We shall see then who is the right people > to attend it. > > > > BR > > > > *De:* stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] > *Enviado el:* jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:46 > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > *CC:* Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; fiware-pcc > *Asunto:* Re: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > dear jose, > > i do agree with nuria it is difficult to make a concrete proposal. > > i think you should ask some more clarifications to understand the role > fi-ware migth play at the meeting. > > what i think, a bit different from nuria, is that the topic will be more > concerned on phase 2, and thus topics under discussion clarification will > be availability of the ge and their deployment on the testbed as well as to > understand if the new uc should (must?) use our infrastructure to host uc > applications or at least part of them. > > if this is the case i'm available (still ....). > > ciao, > stefano > > > > 2012/12/20 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > > Sorry, we do not have further information so far, except what I have sent > to you. > > > > BR > > > > *De:* Nuria De-Lama Sanchez [mailto:nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu] > *Enviado el:* jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:17 > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc > *Asunto:* RE: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > What kind of input do they need from FI-WARE? Are they expecting > presentations at technical level (maybe a technical overview of the project > for the purpose of informing new projects in Phase II? > > > > I think that the participation of the project could vary depending on the > kind of discussions that will happen there: for example, synchronization > for the purpose of using or deploying infrastructures could require very > concrete information on the testbed roadmap (I suppose this could still be > explained by you, but maybe more details are needed), another aspect could > be the preparation of Phase III, which is something that falls under the > responsibility of FI-WARE, the Capacity Building and all the UC projects > (and the EC is very much interested in that), which basically involves info > on the Open Innovation Lab, communication & dissemination towards third > parties, etc. > > > > Is there an agenda for the meeting? Do you have more concrete information > from the invitation letter sent by the EC? > > > > [image: cid:349045816 at 01072011-3195] > > *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 > > [image: cid:349045816 at 01072011-319C] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *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:* jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 13:25 > *To:* fiware-pcc > *Subject:* [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > Dear PCC > > > > We have received this request from the EC to attend the coordination > meeting next February 4th > > > > We should decide who is attending. In principle I think I should be there. > We have up to 2 seats. Do you think we should need a second representative? > > > > BR > > > > *De:* Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu] > > *Enviado el:* martes, 18 de diciembre de 2012 14:34 > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; > petra.turkama at aalto.fi; federico.alvarez at upm.es > *CC:* Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu; > Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu; > Georgios.TSELENTIS at ec.europa.eu; Maria.MOTA-VIEGAS at ec.europa.eu; > Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu > *Asunto:* Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I write to you in reference to a workshop we will organise on 4-5 February > 2013 for which we require the presence of representatives of the projects > FI-WARE, CONCORD and INFINITY. > > > > The evaluation of call 2 for phase 2 is completed and we are about to > invite five use-case projects and one capacity building project for > negotiations taking place in January and February 2013. Beyond one-to-one > meetings which we will have with the individual consortia, we plan to have > a common FI-PPP negotiation workshop on 4-5 February as previously > announced already ( > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/call2/negotiationcall2_en.htm). > This workshop will be the opportunity for you to discuss with the new phase > 2 projects in detail and ensure that the respective work-plans (DoW) are > updated accordingly, as to have a coherent package of projects moving into > phase 2. To this end we will provide you with a structured agenda closer to > the event, however the workshop will start *Monday 4 February at 9:oo am > and last until Tuesday 5 February until 17:oo*. > > > > I would appreciate if you could note down the dates and ensure that up to > 2 people from FI-WARE, from CONCORD and from INFINITY will participate to > this workshop full-time. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Peter > > > > European Commission - DG CONNECT - Deputy Head of Unit ? Net Innovation > > Telephone: +32 229 91 890 Email: peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 2 12:02:26 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:02:26 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50615C0F6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A016FA730@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: Thank you Stefano and congratulations. It is a very good result. Also my best wishes to you all Are you invited to the audio next Tuesday 8th from Petra?. I hope she will give us more information On the other hand, maybe you are already invited to the meeting in any case from any of your projects. Best regards De: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 02 de enero de 2013 11:57 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; fiware-pcc Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 dear jos? and all, first of all my bets wishes for a wonderful start! here and now i have to say that engineering is in four new projects of phase 2 out of 6, i.e. we are in the capacity building project and in three use case projects. given the role engineering will play in all of those projects and the role i'm playing in fi-ware i think i should go to assure, also from a formal point of view, the best possible sync between fi-ware and the rest. in addition we are in a project of ictlabs which, although very small, will create a link between the fi ppp and the eit world. we can say that this project will really pay the way to what it is expected in phase 3 to happen. of course up to you all to agree on my candidature. ciao, stefano 2013/1/2 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Dear all We have an audio conference next January 8th where we shall be receiving more details about the meeting. We shall see then who is the right people to attend it. BR De: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Enviado el: jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:46 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; fiware-pcc Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 dear jose, i do agree with nuria it is difficult to make a concrete proposal. i think you should ask some more clarifications to understand the role fi-ware migth play at the meeting. what i think, a bit different from nuria, is that the topic will be more concerned on phase 2, and thus topics under discussion clarification will be availability of the ge and their deployment on the testbed as well as to understand if the new uc should (must?) use our infrastructure to host uc applications or at least part of them. if this is the case i'm available (still ....). ciao, stefano 2012/12/20 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Sorry, we do not have further information so far, except what I have sent to you. BR De: Nuria De-Lama Sanchez [mailto:nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu] Enviado el: jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:17 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 What kind of input do they need from FI-WARE? Are they expecting presentations at technical level (maybe a technical overview of the project for the purpose of informing new projects in Phase II? I think that the participation of the project could vary depending on the kind of discussions that will happen there: for example, synchronization for the purpose of using or deploying infrastructures could require very concrete information on the testbed roadmap (I suppose this could still be explained by you, but maybe more details are needed), another aspect could be the preparation of Phase III, which is something that falls under the responsibility of FI-WARE, the Capacity Building and all the UC projects (and the EC is very much interested in that), which basically involves info on the Open Innovation Lab, communication & dissemination towards third parties, etc. Is there an agenda for the meeting? Do you have more concrete information from the invitation letter sent by the EC? 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 [cid:349045816 at 01072011-319C] ________________________________ 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: jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 13:25 To: fiware-pcc Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 Dear PCC We have received this request from the EC to attend the coordination meeting next February 4th We should decide who is attending. In principle I think I should be there. We have up to 2 seats. Do you think we should need a second representative? BR De: Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu] Enviado el: martes, 18 de diciembre de 2012 14:34 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; petra.turkama at aalto.fi; federico.alvarez at upm.es CC: Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu; Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu; Georgios.TSELENTIS at ec.europa.eu; Maria.MOTA-VIEGAS at ec.europa.eu; Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu Asunto: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 Dear colleagues, I write to you in reference to a workshop we will organise on 4-5 February 2013 for which we require the presence of representatives of the projects FI-WARE, CONCORD and INFINITY. The evaluation of call 2 for phase 2 is completed and we are about to invite five use-case projects and one capacity building project for negotiations taking place in January and February 2013. Beyond one-to-one meetings which we will have with the individual consortia, we plan to have a common FI-PPP negotiation workshop on 4-5 February as previously announced already (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/call2/negotiationcall2_en.htm). This workshop will be the opportunity for you to discuss with the new phase 2 projects in detail and ensure that the respective work-plans (DoW) are updated accordingly, as to have a coherent package of projects moving into phase 2. To this end we will provide you with a structured agenda closer to the event, however the workshop will start Monday 4 February at 9:oo am and last until Tuesday 5 February until 17:oo. I would appreciate if you could note down the dates and ensure that up to 2 people from FI-WARE, from CONCORD and from INFINITY will participate to this workshop full-time. Kind regards, Peter [cid:image003.jpg at 01CDE8E0.CE738D10] European Commission - DG CONNECT - Deputy Head of Unit - Net Innovation Telephone: +32 229 91 890 Email: peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu ________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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 -- 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 ________________________________ 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2380 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Jan 2 13:42:00 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:42:00 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 In-Reply-To: References: <8D75402F31CB9044A8BE98020FB2D7A50615C0F6@S-DC-ESTB03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A016FA730@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: dear jose, actually no invitation from petra, nor from any other project yet. the various projects will have their phc from the next week. let's see. what anyway i think is that the coordination must be from fi-ware and nowhere else... regardless who will attend. ciao, stefano 2013/1/2 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Thank you Stefano and congratulations. It is a very good result. > > > > Also my best wishes to you all > > > > Are you invited to the audio next Tuesday 8th from Petra?. I hope she > will give us more information > > > > On the other hand, maybe you are already invited to the meeting in any > case from any of your projects. > > > > Best regards > > > > *De:* stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] > *Enviado el:* mi?rcoles, 02 de enero de 2013 11:57 > > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > *CC:* Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; fiware-pcc > *Asunto:* Re: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > dear jos? and all, > > first of all my bets wishes for a wonderful start! > > here and now i have to say that engineering is in four new projects of > phase 2 out of 6, i.e. we are in the capacity building project and in three > use case projects. > > given the role engineering will play in all of those projects and the role > i'm playing in fi-ware i think i should go to assure, also from a formal > point of view, the best possible sync between fi-ware and the rest. > > in addition we are in a project of ictlabs which, although very small, > will create a link between the fi ppp and the eit world. we can say that > this project will really pay the way to what it is expected in phase 3 to > happen. > > of course up to you all to agree on my candidature. > > ciao, > stefano > > > > 2013/1/2 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > > Dear all > > > > We have an audio conference next January 8th where we shall be receiving > more details about the meeting. We shall see then who is the right people > to attend it. > > > > BR > > > > *De:* stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] > *Enviado el:* jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:46 > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > *CC:* Nuria De-Lama Sanchez; fiware-pcc > *Asunto:* Re: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > dear jose, > > i do agree with nuria it is difficult to make a concrete proposal. > > i think you should ask some more clarifications to understand the role > fi-ware migth play at the meeting. > > what i think, a bit different from nuria, is that the topic will be more > concerned on phase 2, and thus topics under discussion clarification will > be availability of the ge and their deployment on the testbed as well as to > understand if the new uc should (must?) use our infrastructure to host uc > applications or at least part of them. > > if this is the case i'm available (still ....). > > ciao, > stefano > > > > 2012/12/20 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > > Sorry, we do not have further information so far, except what I have sent > to you. > > > > BR > > > > *De:* Nuria De-Lama Sanchez [mailto:nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu] > *Enviado el:* jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 14:17 > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc > *Asunto:* RE: [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > What kind of input do they need from FI-WARE? Are they expecting > presentations at technical level (maybe a technical overview of the project > for the purpose of informing new projects in Phase II? > > > > I think that the participation of the project could vary depending on the > kind of discussions that will happen there: for example, synchronization > for the purpose of using or deploying infrastructures could require very > concrete information on the testbed roadmap (I suppose this could still be > explained by you, but maybe more details are needed), another aspect could > be the preparation of Phase III, which is something that falls under the > responsibility of FI-WARE, the Capacity Building and all the UC projects > (and the EC is very much interested in that), which basically involves info > on the Open Innovation Lab, communication & dissemination towards third > parties, etc. > > > > Is there an agenda for the meeting? Do you have more concrete information > from the invitation letter sent by the EC? > > > > [image: cid:349045816 at 01072011-3195] > > *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 > > [image: cid:349045816 at 01072011-319C] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *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:* jueves, 20 de diciembre de 2012 13:25 > *To:* fiware-pcc > *Subject:* [Fiware-pcc] RV: Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > Dear PCC > > > > We have received this request from the EC to attend the coordination > meeting next February 4th > > > > We should decide who is attending. In principle I think I should be there. > We have up to 2 seats. Do you think we should need a second representative? > > > > BR > > > > *De:* Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu [mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu] > > *Enviado el:* martes, 18 de diciembre de 2012 14:34 > *Para:* JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; > petra.turkama at aalto.fi; federico.alvarez at upm.es > *CC:* Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu; Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu; > Maria-Concepcion.ANTON-GARCIA at ec.europa.eu; > Georgios.TSELENTIS at ec.europa.eu; Maria.MOTA-VIEGAS at ec.europa.eu; > Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu > *Asunto:* Future Internet PPP Phase 2 > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > I write to you in reference to a workshop we will organise on 4-5 February > 2013 for which we require the presence of representatives of the projects > FI-WARE, CONCORD and INFINITY. > > > > The evaluation of call 2 for phase 2 is completed and we are about to > invite five use-case projects and one capacity building project for > negotiations taking place in January and February 2013. Beyond one-to-one > meetings which we will have with the individual consortia, we plan to have > a common FI-PPP negotiation workshop on 4-5 February as previously > announced already ( > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/call2/negotiationcall2_en.htm). > This workshop will be the opportunity for you to discuss with the new phase > 2 projects in detail and ensure that the respective work-plans (DoW) are > updated accordingly, as to have a coherent package of projects moving into > phase 2. To this end we will provide you with a structured agenda closer to > the event, however the workshop will start *Monday 4 February at 9:oo am > and last until Tuesday 5 February until 17:oo*. > > > > I would appreciate if you could note down the dates and ensure that up to > 2 people from FI-WARE, from CONCORD and from INFINITY will participate to > this workshop full-time. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Peter > > > > European Commission - DG CONNECT - Deputy Head of Unit ? Net Innovation > > Telephone: +32 229 91 890 Email: peter.fatelnig at ec.europa.eu > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2380 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jan 17 18:26:32 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:26:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Requirements on phase 2 projects to take into account during negotiations In-Reply-To: <50F822B7.2040108@tid.es> References: <50F822B7.2040108@tid.es> Message-ID: <50F83448.1030406@tid.es> Dear all, We at Telefonica believe that FI-WARE should play an active role during negotiations of projects of the phase 2 of the FI-PPP. In this respect, we would like to come up with a number of requirements that we believe should be taken into account while negotiating projects in the phase 2 of the FI-PPP, i.e., probably become part of the DoW associated to those projects. Here it is our first input on the matter that we have already shared with the EC. They are still defined in a very high-level, however I believe they are described well enough as to understand them: * "Physical" Architecture of Trial projects should be validated by both the Capacity Building and FI-WARE projects. We should avoid that each Trial ends up with a dedicated FI-WARE Instance deployed on their own infrastructure, for instance. If there are opportunities to use some of the GEis "as a Service" from a common shared FI-WARE Instance or network of FI-WARE Instances, operated by the Capacity Building Project, that should be the path to go. Trials should make their case about why dedicated FI-WARE GEis have to be deployed instead. While consensus is highly desirable, I believe that the Capacity Building project and FI-WARE should take the role of approving what the Trials will propose and be able to require changes. * Software Architecture of Trial projects should be validated by FI-WARE to make sure that Trials take the most that is possible from FI-WARE. We should avoid that Trials develop/use enablers that could be covered by existing FI-WARE GEs. FI-WARE should take the role of approving what Trials propose and require changes. * Trials projects should be planned so that no one enters into "production" until the Technology Foundation continuation project has started. Being realistic, it would be highly desirable that projects don't enter into production until September 2014. It is worth considering whether duration of Trial projects should be adjusted accordingly, so that they last 30 months instead of 24 months (which is what we suspect most of them have planned). * Trials projects should be requested to offer to 3rd party developers the opportunity to run their applications on the infrastructure the Trials will setup together with the Capacity Building project. In this respect, Trials and the Capacity Building projects should be asked to design how their operating infrastructure will be connected to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab. We should allow that an application that has been experimented/tested in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab finds the way to be tried with real users thanks to the infrastructures that Trials and the Capacity Buidling project will setup together. We would like to gather your feedback on them as well as collect any additional requirement you believe it would be worth to add. I believe this is a discussion that we can carry out off-line effectively. As far as we understand, CONCORD is developing a draft on KPIs to be asked to UC trials in phase 2 and therefore to be included in the DoW ... but I haven't seen anything that I can share at this point. A rather quickly list of KPIs that we have defined and sent to the EC (indeed very much related with the above requirements) are the following: 1. number of FI-WARE GEs being used 2. number of applications from third parties experimented in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab that have been able to run integrated with the trial developed by the project 3. number of FI-WARE GEs being used that are deployed and offered "as a Service" on shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity Building project 4. number of VMs allocated for execution of trial application components on FI-WARE Cloud provided as part of shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity Building project 5. object storage capacity allocated for usage by trial application components on FI-WARE Cloud provided as part of shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity Building project 6. average number of requests per day to FI-WARE GE APIs during execution of trials 7. average number of requests per month to FI-WARE GE APIs during execution of trials Values of all these KPIs should be benchmarked against: * min value established as minimum target at start of phase 2 * average value for UC trials in phase 2 * value in demo application to be developed by FI-WARE (this only applicable to KPI no. 1) Again, your feedback on them and input regarding additional KPIs is more than welcome. Our goal is that FI-WARE arrives with a presentation on our final requirements and KPIs during the workshop negotiation on Feb 4-5, ideally with a concrete draft text to be included in the DoWs of new projects in phase 2. 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 thierry.nagellen at orange.com Fri Jan 18 08:47:28 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:47:28 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Requirements on phase 2 projects to take into account during negotiations In-Reply-To: <50F83448.1030406@tid.es> References: <50F822B7.2040108@tid.es> <50F83448.1030406@tid.es> Message-ID: <29756_1358495250_50F8FE12_29756_1179_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08BB33@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all, Here are my comments : ? This kind of validation should happen at the Architecture Board level first, but it is not enough as WP Architects are not involved is this body. But to ask more from the new projects, we should propose quickly a framework on how their architecture should be described. To me, we have also a lack on our whole architecture so we cannot just require more from the new projects that what we have today. We had this discussion several times and also with the reviewers so do we propose to the new projects to use the same tools than us to describe their architecture? It should be the first step to share a common technical vision. ? I would be a bit more flexible on the validation process because they will not use only Fi-Ware GE but also Specific Enablers so do we have to spend lots of time also to understand this part of their architecture? If yes, we have to dedicate some resources for that explicitly. ? We agree to manage some PoC with the testbed so I think it is difficult to say that we will postpone trials when Fi-Ware will stop! Except if you have some news that we will continue during the 3rd phase and that all partners involved in Fi-Ware will be there also... If by production you understand that end-users will be able to use new services, I agree that our testbed and the Open Innovation Lab will not support correctly what the new projects should run. But in this case it is more a point for Xifi than for FiWare. I have no major comments on the KPI you propose. They are a good starting point for the negotiation. BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : jeudi 17 janvier 2013 18:27 ? : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Requirements on phase 2 projects to take into account during negotiations Dear all, We at Telefonica believe that FI-WARE should play an active role during negotiations of projects of the phase 2 of the FI-PPP. In this respect, we would like to come up with a number of requirements that we believe should be taken into account while negotiating projects in the phase 2 of the FI-PPP, i.e., probably become part of the DoW associated to those projects. Here it is our first input on the matter that we have already shared with the EC. They are still defined in a very high-level, however I believe they are described well enough as to understand them: * "Physical" Architecture of Trial projects should be validated by both the Capacity Building and FI-WARE projects. We should avoid that each Trial ends up with a dedicated FI-WARE Instance deployed on their own infrastructure, for instance. If there are opportunities to use some of the GEis "as a Service" from a common shared FI-WARE Instance or network of FI-WARE Instances, operated by the Capacity Building Project, that should be the path to go. Trials should make their case about why dedicated FI-WARE GEis have to be deployed instead. While consensus is highly desirable, I believe that the Capacity Building project and FI-WARE should take the role of approving what the Trials will propose and be able to require changes. * Software Architecture of Trial projects should be validated by FI-WARE to make sure that Trials take the most that is possible from FI-WARE. We should avoid that Trials develop/use enablers that could be covered by existing FI-WARE GEs. FI-WARE should take the role of approving what Trials propose and require changes. * Trials projects should be planned so that no one enters into "production" until the Technology Foundation continuation project has started. Being realistic, it would be highly desirable that projects don't enter into production until September 2014. It is worth considering whether duration of Trial projects should be adjusted accordingly, so that they last 30 months instead of 24 months (which is what we suspect most of them have planned). * Trials projects should be requested to offer to 3rd party developers the opportunity to run their applications on the infrastructure the Trials will setup together with the Capacity Building project. In this respect, Trials and the Capacity Building projects should be asked to design how their operating infrastructure will be connected to the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab. We should allow that an application that has been experimented/tested in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab finds the way to be tried with real users thanks to the infrastructures that Trials and the Capacity Buidling project will setup together. We would like to gather your feedback on them as well as collect any additional requirement you believe it would be worth to add. I believe this is a discussion that we can carry out off-line effectively. As far as we understand, CONCORD is developing a draft on KPIs to be asked to UC trials in phase 2 and therefore to be included in the DoW ... but I haven't seen anything that I can share at this point. A rather quickly list of KPIs that we have defined and sent to the EC (indeed very much related with the above requirements) are the following: 1. number of FI-WARE GEs being used 2. number of applications from third parties experimented in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab that have been able to run integrated with the trial developed by the project 3. number of FI-WARE GEs being used that are deployed and offered "as a Service" on shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity Building project 4. number of VMs allocated for execution of trial application components on FI-WARE Cloud provided as part of shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity Building project 5. object storage capacity allocated for usage by trial application components on FI-WARE Cloud provided as part of shared/federated facilities provided by the Capacity Building project 6. average number of requests per day to FI-WARE GE APIs during execution of trials 7. average number of requests per month to FI-WARE GE APIs during execution of trials Values of all these KPIs should be benchmarked against: * min value established as minimum target at start of phase 2 * average value for UC trials in phase 2 * value in demo application to be developed by FI-WARE (this only applicable to KPI no. 1) Again, your feedback on them and input regarding additional KPIs is more than welcome. Our goal is that FI-WARE arrives with a presentation on our final requirements and KPIs during the workshop negotiation on Feb 4-5, ideally with a concrete draft text to be included in the DoWs of new projects in phase 2. 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 24 12:00:47 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:00:47 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Patent request Message-ID: Dear PCC/GA I enclose this letters indicating some actions towards Patents related to FI-WARE initiated by Siemens We would kindly request Siemens to send us further information establishing whether those patents are considered essential and act accordingly to the conditions of the CA (enclosed) Thank you and Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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: 18 - SIEMENS - Patent 1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 191757 bytes Desc: 18 - SIEMENS - Patent 1.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 192393 bytes Desc: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 2.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 260360 bytes Desc: 18 - SIEMENS-Patent 3.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: consortium agreement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 256707 bytes Desc: consortium agreement.pdf URL: From jhierro at tid.es Fri Jan 25 05:59:43 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:59:43 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] FI-WARE PCC meeting Message-ID: <936DECD07EB54B4BAA44E7B823EC894150FD2B85@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> When: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:00 PM-5:00 PM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Hi all, This is just to make sure that you have received the invitation for a FI-WARE PCC meeting next Thursday January 31st from 15:00 to 17:00 Cheers, -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 2192 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Jan 25 10:20:04 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:20:04 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Patent request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear jose, yes we definitively need more info as the letter say nothing about which ge (only one says enough specifically that the video ge is involved), or part of them, is under patenting requests. anyway, that ge, is quite used by some uc projects and most likely will be used by others in phase 2. so this patent filing does not affect only fi-ware, but also the fi-ppp program as a whole. i guess actions in that direction should be taken as well. ciao, stefano ciao, stefano 2013/1/24 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC/GA > > > > I enclose this letters indicating some actions towards Patents related to > FI-WARE initiated by Siemens > > > > We would kindly request Siemens to send us further information establishing > whether those patents are considered essential and act accordingly to the > conditions of the CA (enclosed) > > > > Thank you and Best regards > > > > BR > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 From jhierro at tid.es Fri Jan 25 12:46:02 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:46:02 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: withdrawal of Ericsson and data on Costs/funding justification of Ericsson until In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5102707A.40004@tid.es> Dear all, Regretfully, we have to communicate the complete withdrawal of Ericsson in the FI-WARE project. Some of you may have already been notified by the Ericsson representative in your WP, but let this email being forwarded work as official communication. Withdrawn of Ericsson from WP3 and WP9 had already been announce time ago. It had been properly handled by the corresponding WPLs and the necessary changes in the new amendment of the DoW were already introduced. Leaders of the rest of WPs where Ericsson was participating have now to prepare and assessment of the impact and come with a proposal before Wednesday 30th noon, on how to handle the withdrawn of Ericsson in their corresponding WPs, including a proposal on how funding initially assigned to Ericsson can be transferred to other partners that can take over the role of Ericsson. Their proposal will be discussed in the Management PCC meeting that has been call on Thursday 31st, 15:00 CET. Javier de Pedro, in copy of this mail, will send the information about remaining funding associated to Ericsson after month 18th to each of the WPLs where Ericsson was involved. Available funding will help you to make a proposal about PMs to allocate to other partners that can take over the role of Ericsson. Please also consider the opportunity to keep part of the funding available for future unforeseen needs of your WP, i.e., it's not a matter of assigning the maximum PMs possible to the partner who can take over the role of Ericsson. These remaining funding would be allocated to the WPL or Telefonica, to be transferred later on, whatever option is preferred by the WPL. 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: Ericsson in FIWARE Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:54:55 +0000 From: Henrik Abramowicz To: Juanjo Hierro , "JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO (jimenez at tid.es)" CC: Magnus Madfors , Anders Casp?r Dear Juanjo and Jose, As you have noticed we have not been so active lately in FIWARE and I am sorry to inform you that Ericsson will no longer be able to participate in FIWARE. You might also have noticed in media that Ericsson is currently downsizing and re-organising and we will have even less resources for FIWARE. This means that we will have to withdraw from FIWARE and I am personally sorry for that and that it might hurt the project inadvertently. We need to have a discussion on the withdrawal and how limit the effects for FIWARE. I have possibility for a telco already on Friday afternoon it that suits you BR Henrik HENRIK ABRAMOWICZ M Sc Ericsson AB Ericsson Research F?r?gatan 6 164 80 Stockholm, Sweden Phone +46 10 714 6608 SMS/MMS + 46 (0) 70 540 33 72 henrik.abramowicz at ericsson.com www.ericsson.com [http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign] This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer ________________________________ 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/gif Size: 1417 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 20657 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Mon Jan 28 10:10:52 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:10:52 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Message-ID: Dear PCC, GA As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you essentially agree. If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your comments to the EC Best regards Now a new draft version Saludos -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 1723392 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v4.doc URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Mon Jan 28 11:04:15 2013 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:04:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: Invitation: FI-WARE PCC meeting (31 Jan 15:00 CET) Message-ID: I have a conflict at this time slot.. when was it discussed to have this meeting? maybe we can use doodle to find a suitable slot? Thanks, Alex ----- Forwarded by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM on 28/01/2013 12:03 PM ----- Invitation: FI-WARE PCC meeting Thu 31/01/2013 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM Attendance is required for Alex Glikson Chair: jhierro at tid.es Sent By: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu No Location Information jhierro at tid.es jhierro has invited you to a meeting. You have not yet responded. Required: jimenez at tid.es, fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu, Time zones: This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Thu 31/01/2013 3:00 PM CET5:00 PM CET When: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:00 PM-5:00 PM. (UTC+01:00) Brussels, Copenhagen, Madrid, Paris *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Hi all, This is just to make sure that you have received the invitation for a FI-WARE PCC meeting next Thursday January 31st from 15:00 to 17:00 Cheers, -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Type: application/octet-stream Size: 148 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon Jan 28 19:36:17 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:36:17 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5106C521.6040708@tid.es> Dear all, Please replace the document forwarded by Jos? Jim?nez this morning by the attached one. It is a clean version compared to the previous one and there are some minor changes also incorporated. Besides, this one is the last one shared with the EC. Sorry for the inconveniences. Cheers, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- 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 28/01/13 10:10, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Dear PCC, GA As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you essentially agree. If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your comments to the EC Best regards Now a new draft version Saludos -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga ________________________________ 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: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 333274 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Tue Jan 29 02:23:33 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:23:33 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear jose, i have some points to discuss as some of the measures are dangerous and someothers without a clear funding completely usless (good only to give money to friends of friends ...) i guess we will have a point in the agenda dedicated to this proposal rigth? ciao, stefano 2013/1/28 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC, GA > > > > As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version > of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long > history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and > then continuously adapted and improved. > > > > I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which > should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version > should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. > > > > We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to > you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved > by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, > what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you > essentially agree. > > > > If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). > Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. > > > > If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your > comments to the EC > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Now a new draft version > > > > Saludos > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 29 08:50:21 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:50:21 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Stefano, dear all, In principle, I had no plans to discuss the document at the coming PCC meeting, unless there is a wide interest from the floor. I think it is a discussion difficult to do over the phone Would it be all right if we have an e-mail discussion on those topics?. I am enclosing the document again for you to comment. I would suggest we take this discussion out of the PCC/GA list (to avoid bombarding the rest) and we shall only discuss it in a more limited group. Of course, we should inform the PCC/GA of the main conclusions I would like also to indicate we have received a mail from Peter (see attached). He is suggesting some more people (beyond the original two seats) could attend the meeting of the 4-5 February (again see the attached agenda). If you (or anyone else) wish to take advantage of this invitation, please just let us know. Thank you -----Mensaje original----- De: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 2:24 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure dear jose, i have some points to discuss as some of the measures are dangerous and someothers without a clear funding completely usless (good only to give money to friends of friends ...) i guess we will have a point in the agenda dedicated to this proposal rigth? ciao, stefano 2013/1/28 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC, GA > > > > As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new > version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a > very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared > by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. > > > > I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, > which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). > This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. > > > > We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending > it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not > fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally > yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and > say to Peter that you essentially agree. > > > > If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). > Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. > > > > If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass > your comments to the EC > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Now a new draft version > > > > Saludos > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 ________________________________ 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 embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu" Subject: Future Internet PPP Negotiation Workshop, Brussels, 4/5 February 2013 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:04:44 +0000 Size: 88567 URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 333274 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean.docx URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jan 29 10:04:11 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:04:11 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5107908B.8010202@tid.es> Hi, I would suggest that people circulate their comments and carry as much as possible of the discussion over the email, as Jose suggested, then use the PCC meeting just for final approval or discussion on any topic that we haven't been able to agree over the email. Starting the discussion on Thursday doesn't seem to be the best idea. My vision on the new governance structure is that it doesn't introduce so many changes to what was already there before. In general terms: * CONCORD has been asked to hire concrete people, with more suitable skills, to carry out concrete activities that nobody was taking care of before (or were intended to be carried out by people with not such a qualified profile). I guess this is better than just giving money to CONCORD without a strong requirement on them to identify people with the right profile to carry out some of the work they were supposed to carry out: * Two positions have been defined that will be funded by CONCORD who has been requested to be covered by people that will devote more or less 100% of his time and are supposed to have a better curriculum vitae than the one CONCORD had assigned so far: Program Chairman and Business Manager (Impact Manager). There is a candidate for the Program Chairman position already: Ilkka Lakaniemi who I don't know very well but seems to have some public relations skills (see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ilkka-lakaniemi/0/105/249). The other one is the one named as Business Manager (some people preferred to name it as Impact Manager) which I guess may be helpful for some exploitation activities if they find the right person. * In addition, there is this position of Technical Advisor that may not hurt and may help to facilitate work at the AB (apparently they are thinking in assigning this role to Thomas). Facilitation by CONCORD was so far almost equal to zero ... * There is this concept of EIB that has been introduced mostly because of a request of some partners in the so called G13 (I have been told it was Thales). Here, we believe that it is better to let companies drive the program rather than keep it driven by projects. If someone asks me, I would replace the SB by the EIB or merge them, but giving more weight to companies (overall those who made a significant investment) in the decision processes rather than projects. * Requirement on assigning budget to certain communication efforts. Here, we have made it clear that FI-WARE has fulfill his contribution by assigning the 3rd Open Call to dissemination activities. Does it need to be more explicit in the text ? Other than that, the SB and the AB have to reach consensus in their decision and the AB keeps its role ... so no changes in that respect ... Could Stefano elaborate more on his concerns ? Probably he's seeing something that has passed unadvertised to us ... 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 29/01/13 08:50, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Dear Stefano, dear all, In principle, I had no plans to discuss the document at the coming PCC meeting, unless there is a wide interest from the floor. I think it is a discussion difficult to do over the phone Would it be all right if we have an e-mail discussion on those topics?. I am enclosing the document again for you to comment. I would suggest we take this discussion out of the PCC/GA list (to avoid bombarding the rest) and we shall only discuss it in a more limited group. Of course, we should inform the PCC/GA of the main conclusions I would like also to indicate we have received a mail from Peter (see attached). He is suggesting some more people (beyond the original two seats) could attend the meeting of the 4-5 February (again see the attached agenda). If you (or anyone else) wish to take advantage of this invitation, please just let us know. Thank you -----Mensaje original----- De: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 2:24 Para: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure dear jose, i have some points to discuss as some of the measures are dangerous and someothers without a clear funding completely usless (good only to give money to friends of friends ...) i guess we will have a point in the agenda dedicated to this proposal rigth? ciao, stefano 2013/1/28 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : Dear PCC, GA As you know, the different projects of the PPP are preparing a new version of the Governance Structure. The new version has already a very long history, initially being based on a draft document prepared by Thales and then continuously adapted and improved. I am sending to you the existing draft version of the governance, which should be almost final (even if changes are still possible). This version should be presented to the Phase II projects next February 4th. We need the approval of the PCC/GA for this document, so I am sending it to you for your preliminary approval. However, since it is not fully approved by the EC, I do not think we can approve it formally yet, so for the moment, what I need is your green light to proceed and say to Peter that you essentially agree. If you have any strong comment, please let me know (use change control). Please try not to make changes if they are not essential. If you think we still need to go through a legal process, I will pass your comments to the EC Best regards Now a new draft version Saludos -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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 jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 29 10:29:36 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:29:36 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Presence at the MWC Message-ID: Dear PCC/WPL Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in Barcelona: There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona 1) MWB 2) A presentation at the FIRA MWC. The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the FI-WARE presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo and myself will take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary for any of you to attend. We are preparing some posters and demonstrations and may be Carlos will ask for your help. However, if any of you plan to attend the MWC and is ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most appreciated. FIRA: The event is going to take place at FIRA http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1 You can find all information and program at http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this WS the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. Juanjo or myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is reasonable that some WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the details but it seems reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, particularly those WP with connection to other projects. If you cannot come, please try to find a representative/replacement who can perform demonstrations and interface with other projects (perhaps you can agree a common representation from 2-3 WP in the same person, please try to organize yourself) Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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: MWC - Demo agenda v0.5.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 49942 bytes Desc: MWC - Demo agenda v0.5.xlsx URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jan 29 11:21:35 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:21:35 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> Message-ID: <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> Hi all, Stefano has sent to me an email where he elaborated on his concerns and has allowed me to forward it to you so here you are with my comments on his comments. On 29/01/13 10:38, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, somehow you touched exactly my points: 1. the ta is clearly dangerous and with the new proposal absolutely redundant. let me explain: to the sb meeting you'll be permanently invited and as well to the ab meetings the sb chair migth come and he will. so what is for the ta? if he/she has to be "independent" can he/she work for any of the fi-ppp? the rules say yes, but rationality says clearly not! he/she is useless or even dangerous if he/sheis not coming from fi-ware, but again where is his/her need this case? if it is this to have an ab secretariat then this is completely different .... can you imagine the mess if this person is not thomas? i think good roles should be independent from the person! Regarding the Technical Advisor, I agree there is a risk if not the right person or someone we can trust. I took the opportunity to check with Thomas whether he was aware about this role (since he is currently participating in discussions about negotiations of phase 2 as part of CONCORD) and whether it was matching the role he would play as CONCORD representative participating as facilitator of the AB. He answered to me that he was not aware of this role and even didn't understand it very well. Given these facts, maybe it would be worth asking for dropping it out. 2. the buisness/impact manager. from the experience from ict labs this person without a significant team can only organise meetings of doubtfull utility (in the end look at juan in fi-ware and he has a team!!!). so, from where they come the resources to fund the work of this person? where is the committment? how to measure the impcat? there will be specific indication given to uc if their trial are of no impact in real economy? may be they have in mind a "friend of friends" they have to give a role with nice business cards .... i definitively suggest to drop this or to have a strong link with eit labs team. Despite I don't have a strong opinion, I see some advantages for this position: * In general terms, the business/impact/exploitation WG is one WG where always things work better if there is someone 100% devoted to the task and s/he pushes. Currently, the WG is made up of good and talent people but people that I'm afraid do not have their contribution to the WG as a main priority ... * If the guy is a consultant that may actually help in writing stuff, not just sake hands, and be able to exchange nice business cards ... I would see the value ... maybe it's a matter of making this more explicit Besides this, you should also think the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to work for the business/exploitation/impact WG ? 3. the fi-ppp chairman id he/she is a ceo must have power otherwise again good for being the person providing nice interviews. please remeber that peter was not able to drive towards any decision and he has the power of the ec behind him. if projects they do not follow they simply do not follow ... besides that the indicated person has no glue whatsoever what is the fi-ppp. i firmly believe he/she must be elected/nominated within the eib. than i t migth be he/she will have an impact.... I rather believe, to be straight and transparent, that this position is for "being the person providing nice interviews" as you mention. Besides, the chair of the SB (you need someone that moderates the discussions). But, other thant that, If you read the text carefully, no power is given to him. So indeed s/he is not a CEO (maybe we should drop that part of the text), just a chair. Again, it's also a matter of thinking the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to chair the SB, act as public relations, etc ? Best regards, -- Juanjo you can forward this email to the rest of the pcc. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 Juanjo Hierro : ________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 29 11:51:51 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:51:51 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> Message-ID: Hi all Of course, I agree with Juanjo's comments, just some reinforcing issues: We just cannot pretend to continue as today. We need to introduce some changes, otherwise the EC will say we do not want to improve. So we need to propose things Once said that, I agree The idea of the TA is redundant. However, Thomas would do it well (we hope). If it is not Thomas, we would need to check... We need to insist that the TA is controlled by the SB and, particularly, by the AB and he/she is only consultative. We could propose it is dropped but he could help to represent the PPP at technical events The idea of the Business Manager is strange. I do not know how anybody can do anything. However, it has not been approved yet, so we can propose the EIB connection at the SB. However, as Juanjo says, we need to accept something I like Stefano's idea of linking to the EIB. The chairman. In fact, I think the project coordinator of CONCORD should have this role. Representing the PPP is necessary and it cannot be done by Juanjo or me. So, provided decisions are not taken by him alone, I see not major problem. The only comment is that I do not understand why he/she has to be different from CONCORD coordinator (...essentially he/she could do both) Br De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Juanjo Hierro Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 11:22 Para: stefano de panfilis CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, Stefano has sent to me an email where he elaborated on his concerns and has allowed me to forward it to you so here you are with my comments on his comments. On 29/01/13 10:38, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, somehow you touched exactly my points: 1. the ta is clearly dangerous and with the new proposal absolutely redundant. let me explain: to the sb meeting you'll be permanently invited and as well to the ab meetings the sb chair migth come and he will. so what is for the ta? if he/she has to be "independent" can he/she work for any of the fi-ppp? the rules say yes, but rationality says clearly not! he/she is useless or even dangerous if he/sheis not coming from fi-ware, but again where is his/her need this case? if it is this to have an ab secretariat then this is completely different .... can you imagine the mess if this person is not thomas? i think good roles should be independent from the person! Regarding the Technical Advisor, I agree there is a risk if not the right person or someone we can trust. I took the opportunity to check with Thomas whether he was aware about this role (since he is currently participating in discussions about negotiations of phase 2 as part of CONCORD) and whether it was matching the role he would play as CONCORD representative participating as facilitator of the AB. He answered to me that he was not aware of this role and even didn't understand it very well. Given these facts, maybe it would be worth asking for dropping it out. 2. the buisness/impact manager. from the experience from ict labs this person without a significant team can only organise meetings of doubtfull utility (in the end look at juan in fi-ware and he has a team!!!). so, from where they come the resources to fund the work of this person? where is the committment? how to measure the impcat? there will be specific indication given to uc if their trial are of no impact in real economy? may be they have in mind a "friend of friends" they have to give a role with nice business cards .... i definitively suggest to drop this or to have a strong link with eit labs team. Despite I don't have a strong opinion, I see some advantages for this position: * In general terms, the business/impact/exploitation WG is one WG where always things work better if there is someone 100% devoted to the task and s/he pushes. Currently, the WG is made up of good and talent people but people that I'm afraid do not have their contribution to the WG as a main priority ... * If the guy is a consultant that may actually help in writing stuff, not just sake hands, and be able to exchange nice business cards ... I would see the value ... maybe it's a matter of making this more explicit Besides this, you should also think the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to work for the business/exploitation/impact WG ? 3. the fi-ppp chairman id he/she is a ceo must have power otherwise again good for being the person providing nice interviews. please remeber that peter was not able to drive towards any decision and he has the power of the ec behind him. if projects they do not follow they simply do not follow ... besides that the indicated person has no glue whatsoever what is the fi-ppp. i firmly believe he/she must be elected/nominated within the eib. than i t migth be he/she will have an impact.... I rather believe, to be straight and transparent, that this position is for "being the person providing nice interviews" as you mention. Besides, the chair of the SB (you need someone that moderates the discussions). But, other thant that, If you read the text carefully, no power is given to him. So indeed s/he is not a CEO (maybe we should drop that part of the text), just a chair. Again, it's also a matter of thinking the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to chair the SB, act as public relations, etc ? Best regards, -- Juanjo you can forward this email to the rest of the pcc. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 Juanjo Hierro : ________________________________ 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 thierry.nagellen at orange.com Tue Jan 29 11:57:07 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:57:07 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> Message-ID: <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Dear all Some additional comments. It was also expected that the Steering Board could decide something... There is no change regarding this approach (a mandate from each consortium to be able to vote and then that the decision could be put in place for all projects) Composition of SB and AB are not clear: 15 people in SB with 2 people per project (we have 7 projects in phase 2) and the new roles + chief architect, so clearly more than 15 For AB it is not clear to me if there are 2 people per project, or each project must delegate someone For the other roles, ti is clear that we need someone to manage the operational team from Concord but they have no real power. BR Thierry 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? : mardi 29 janvier 2013 11:52 ? : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all Of course, I agree with Juanjo's comments, just some reinforcing issues: We just cannot pretend to continue as today. We need to introduce some changes, otherwise the EC will say we do not want to improve. So we need to propose things Once said that, I agree The idea of the TA is redundant. However, Thomas would do it well (we hope). If it is not Thomas, we would need to check... We need to insist that the TA is controlled by the SB and, particularly, by the AB and he/she is only consultative. We could propose it is dropped but he could help to represent the PPP at technical events The idea of the Business Manager is strange. I do not know how anybody can do anything. However, it has not been approved yet, so we can propose the EIB connection at the SB. However, as Juanjo says, we need to accept something I like Stefano's idea of linking to the EIB. The chairman. In fact, I think the project coordinator of CONCORD should have this role. Representing the PPP is necessary and it cannot be done by Juanjo or me. So, provided decisions are not taken by him alone, I see not major problem. The only comment is that I do not understand why he/she has to be different from CONCORD coordinator (...essentially he/she could do both) Br De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Juanjo Hierro Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 11:22 Para: stefano de panfilis CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, Stefano has sent to me an email where he elaborated on his concerns and has allowed me to forward it to you so here you are with my comments on his comments. On 29/01/13 10:38, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, somehow you touched exactly my points: 1. the ta is clearly dangerous and with the new proposal absolutely redundant. let me explain: to the sb meeting you'll be permanently invited and as well to the ab meetings the sb chair migth come and he will. so what is for the ta? if he/she has to be "independent" can he/she work for any of the fi-ppp? the rules say yes, but rationality says clearly not! he/she is useless or even dangerous if he/sheis not coming from fi-ware, but again where is his/her need this case? if it is this to have an ab secretariat then this is completely different .... can you imagine the mess if this person is not thomas? i think good roles should be independent from the person! Regarding the Technical Advisor, I agree there is a risk if not the right person or someone we can trust. I took the opportunity to check with Thomas whether he was aware about this role (since he is currently participating in discussions about negotiations of phase 2 as part of CONCORD) and whether it was matching the role he would play as CONCORD representative participating as facilitator of the AB. He answered to me that he was not aware of this role and even didn't understand it very well. Given these facts, maybe it would be worth asking for dropping it out. 2. the buisness/impact manager. from the experience from ict labs this person without a significant team can only organise meetings of doubtfull utility (in the end look at juan in fi-ware and he has a team!!!). so, from where they come the resources to fund the work of this person? where is the committment? how to measure the impcat? there will be specific indication given to uc if their trial are of no impact in real economy? may be they have in mind a "friend of friends" they have to give a role with nice business cards .... i definitively suggest to drop this or to have a strong link with eit labs team. Despite I don't have a strong opinion, I see some advantages for this position: * In general terms, the business/impact/exploitation WG is one WG where always things work better if there is someone 100% devoted to the task and s/he pushes. Currently, the WG is made up of good and talent people but people that I'm afraid do not have their contribution to the WG as a main priority ... * If the guy is a consultant that may actually help in writing stuff, not just sake hands, and be able to exchange nice business cards ... I would see the value ... maybe it's a matter of making this more explicit Besides this, you should also think the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to work for the business/exploitation/impact WG ? 3. the fi-ppp chairman id he/she is a ceo must have power otherwise again good for being the person providing nice interviews. please remeber that peter was not able to drive towards any decision and he has the power of the ec behind him. if projects they do not follow they simply do not follow ... besides that the indicated person has no glue whatsoever what is the fi-ppp. i firmly believe he/she must be elected/nominated within the eib. than i t migth be he/she will have an impact.... I rather believe, to be straight and transparent, that this position is for "being the person providing nice interviews" as you mention. Besides, the chair of the SB (you need someone that moderates the discussions). But, other thant that, If you read the text carefully, no power is given to him. So indeed s/he is not a CEO (maybe we should drop that part of the text), just a chair. Again, it's also a matter of thinking the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to chair the SB, act as public relations, etc ? Best regards, -- Juanjo you can forward this email to the rest of the pcc. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 Juanjo Hierro : ________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue Jan 29 12:01:43 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:01:43 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> Message-ID: <5107AC17.9050005@tid.es> On 29/01/13 11:51, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Hi all Of course, I agree with Juanjo's comments, just some reinforcing issues: We just cannot pretend to continue as today. We need to introduce some changes, otherwise the EC will say we do not want to improve. So we need to propose things Once said that, I agree The idea of the TA is redundant. However, Thomas would do it well (we hope). If it is not Thomas, we would need to check... We need to insist that the TA is controlled by the SB and, particularly, by the AB and he/she is only consultative. We could propose it is dropped but he could help to represent the PPP at technical events Let's drop it or keep it clearly linked to the facilitation activities for which CONCORD was asked to look for someone with enough technical skills/background. The idea of the Business Manager is strange. I do not know how anybody can do anything. However, it has not been approved yet, so we can propose the EIB connection at the SB. However, as Juanjo says, we need to accept something I like Stefano's idea of linking to the EIB. No strong opinion here, just consider my comments as input to the discussion. Happy with any decision you take. The chairman. In fact, I think the project coordinator of CONCORD should have this role. Representing the PPP is necessary and it cannot be done by Juanjo or me. So, provided decisions are not taken by him alone, I see not major problem. The only comment is that I do not understand why he/she has to be different from CONCORD coordinator (...essentially he/she could do both) I agree that this was a role that should have been covered by CONCORD from the very beginning as you say, but I believe that there is a benefit in that this role is not carried out by the person playing the CONCORD coordinator role (i.e., Petra). If we just focus on the chairing and the public relationship roles, definitively we need someone with a different profile than Petra. Besides, it is preferable that someone in that role doesn't take care of some other standard project coordination activities I'm pretty sure that Petra is taking care of and are also specific of CONCORD (supervising deliverables, supervising some activities such as newsletter preparation, changes on the website, etc). Best regards, -- Juanjo Br De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Juanjo Hierro Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 11:22 Para: stefano de panfilis CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, Stefano has sent to me an email where he elaborated on his concerns and has allowed me to forward it to you so here you are with my comments on his comments. On 29/01/13 10:38, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, somehow you touched exactly my points: 1. the ta is clearly dangerous and with the new proposal absolutely redundant. let me explain: to the sb meeting you'll be permanently invited and as well to the ab meetings the sb chair migth come and he will. so what is for the ta? if he/she has to be "independent" can he/she work for any of the fi-ppp? the rules say yes, but rationality says clearly not! he/she is useless or even dangerous if he/sheis not coming from fi-ware, but again where is his/her need this case? if it is this to have an ab secretariat then this is completely different .... can you imagine the mess if this person is not thomas? i think good roles should be independent from the person! Regarding the Technical Advisor, I agree there is a risk if not the right person or someone we can trust. I took the opportunity to check with Thomas whether he was aware about this role (since he is currently participating in discussions about negotiations of phase 2 as part of CONCORD) and whether it was matching the role he would play as CONCORD representative participating as facilitator of the AB. He answered to me that he was not aware of this role and even didn't understand it very well. Given these facts, maybe it would be worth asking for dropping it out. 2. the buisness/impact manager. from the experience from ict labs this person without a significant team can only organise meetings of doubtfull utility (in the end look at juan in fi-ware and he has a team!!!). so, from where they come the resources to fund the work of this person? where is the committment? how to measure the impcat? there will be specific indication given to uc if their trial are of no impact in real economy? may be they have in mind a "friend of friends" they have to give a role with nice business cards .... i definitively suggest to drop this or to have a strong link with eit labs team. Despite I don't have a strong opinion, I see some advantages for this position: * In general terms, the business/impact/exploitation WG is one WG where always things work better if there is someone 100% devoted to the task and s/he pushes. Currently, the WG is made up of good and talent people but people that I'm afraid do not have their contribution to the WG as a main priority ... * If the guy is a consultant that may actually help in writing stuff, not just sake hands, and be able to exchange nice business cards ... I would see the value ... maybe it's a matter of making this more explicit Besides this, you should also think the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to work for the business/exploitation/impact WG ? 3. the fi-ppp chairman id he/she is a ceo must have power otherwise again good for being the person providing nice interviews. please remeber that peter was not able to drive towards any decision and he has the power of the ec behind him. if projects they do not follow they simply do not follow ... besides that the indicated person has no glue whatsoever what is the fi-ppp. i firmly believe he/she must be elected/nominated within the eib. than i t migth be he/she will have an impact.... I rather believe, to be straight and transparent, that this position is for "being the person providing nice interviews" as you mention. Besides, the chair of the SB (you need someone that moderates the discussions). But, other thant that, If you read the text carefully, no power is given to him. So indeed s/he is not a CEO (maybe we should drop that part of the text), just a chair. Again, it's also a matter of thinking the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to chair the SB, act as public relations, etc ? Best regards, -- Juanjo you can forward this email to the rest of the pcc. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 Juanjo Hierro : ________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 29 12:30:03 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:30:03 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> On 29/01/13 11:57, thierry.nagellen at orange.com wrote: Dear all Some additional comments. It was also expected that the Steering Board could decide something... There is no change regarding this approach (a mandate from each consortium to be able to vote and then that the decision could be put in place for all projects) I guess there are two sides of the coin: * One is procedure to take decisions. Here, there it is still a bet for the consensus. I believe there is no better choice because going for a voting mechanism would lead to never-ending negotiations :-) * A different matter is whether decisions taken by the SB (by consesus) are binding to the FI-PPP projects. There it is true that the only place where something is said is on page 1 (table sumarizing key changes) and maybe it would be worth moving this to the description of the SB: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. * Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. Would you agree it would be enough by translating the text of the table on page 1 to the description of the SB ? Composition of SB and AB are not clear: 15 people in SB with 2 people per project (we have 7 projects in phase 2) and the new roles + chief architect, so clearly more than 15 I guess it is a matter of dropping any reference to 15 people. For AB it is not clear to me if there are 2 people per project, or each project must delegate someone Regarding the AB, it shouldb be two people per project. This was one of the things I asked to be fixed because was unclear ... For the other roles, ti is clear that we need someone to manage the operational team from Concord but they have no real power. Yes, CONCORD, the Program Chairman, the Business Manager and the Technical Advisor (despite we are saying that we would go for dropping this last one) has no real power. But I guess nobody would agree given them any real power ... Cheers, -- Juanjo BR Thierry 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? : mardi 29 janvier 2013 11:52 ? : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all Of course, I agree with Juanjo's comments, just some reinforcing issues: We just cannot pretend to continue as today. We need to introduce some changes, otherwise the EC will say we do not want to improve. So we need to propose things Once said that, I agree The idea of the TA is redundant. However, Thomas would do it well (we hope). If it is not Thomas, we would need to check... We need to insist that the TA is controlled by the SB and, particularly, by the AB and he/she is only consultative. We could propose it is dropped but he could help to represent the PPP at technical events The idea of the Business Manager is strange. I do not know how anybody can do anything. However, it has not been approved yet, so we can propose the EIB connection at the SB. However, as Juanjo says, we need to accept something I like Stefano's idea of linking to the EIB. The chairman. In fact, I think the project coordinator of CONCORD should have this role. Representing the PPP is necessary and it cannot be done by Juanjo or me. So, provided decisions are not taken by him alone, I see not major problem. The only comment is that I do not understand why he/she has to be different from CONCORD coordinator (...essentially he/she could do both) Br De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Juanjo Hierro Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 11:22 Para: stefano de panfilis CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, Stefano has sent to me an email where he elaborated on his concerns and has allowed me to forward it to you so here you are with my comments on his comments. On 29/01/13 10:38, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, somehow you touched exactly my points: 1. the ta is clearly dangerous and with the new proposal absolutely redundant. let me explain: to the sb meeting you'll be permanently invited and as well to the ab meetings the sb chair migth come and he will. so what is for the ta? if he/she has to be "independent" can he/she work for any of the fi-ppp? the rules say yes, but rationality says clearly not! he/she is useless or even dangerous if he/sheis not coming from fi-ware, but again where is his/her need this case? if it is this to have an ab secretariat then this is completely different .... can you imagine the mess if this person is not thomas? i think good roles should be independent from the person! Regarding the Technical Advisor, I agree there is a risk if not the right person or someone we can trust. I took the opportunity to check with Thomas whether he was aware about this role (since he is currently participating in discussions about negotiations of phase 2 as part of CONCORD) and whether it was matching the role he would play as CONCORD representative participating as facilitator of the AB. He answered to me that he was not aware of this role and even didn't understand it very well. Given these facts, maybe it would be worth asking for dropping it out. 2. the buisness/impact manager. from the experience from ict labs this person without a significant team can only organise meetings of doubtfull utility (in the end look at juan in fi-ware and he has a team!!!). so, from where they come the resources to fund the work of this person? where is the committment? how to measure the impcat? there will be specific indication given to uc if their trial are of no impact in real economy? may be they have in mind a "friend of friends" they have to give a role with nice business cards .... i definitively suggest to drop this or to have a strong link with eit labs team. Despite I don't have a strong opinion, I see some advantages for this position: * In general terms, the business/impact/exploitation WG is one WG where always things work better if there is someone 100% devoted to the task and s/he pushes. Currently, the WG is made up of good and talent people but people that I'm afraid do not have their contribution to the WG as a main priority ... * If the guy is a consultant that may actually help in writing stuff, not just sake hands, and be able to exchange nice business cards ... I would see the value ... maybe it's a matter of making this more explicit Besides this, you should also think the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to work for the business/exploitation/impact WG ? 3. the fi-ppp chairman id he/she is a ceo must have power otherwise again good for being the person providing nice interviews. please remeber that peter was not able to drive towards any decision and he has the power of the ec behind him. if projects they do not follow they simply do not follow ... besides that the indicated person has no glue whatsoever what is the fi-ppp. i firmly believe he/she must be elected/nominated within the eib. than i t migth be he/she will have an impact.... I rather believe, to be straight and transparent, that this position is for "being the person providing nice interviews" as you mention. Besides, the chair of the SB (you need someone that moderates the discussions). But, other thant that, If you read the text carefully, no power is given to him. So indeed s/he is not a CEO (maybe we should drop that part of the text), just a chair. Again, it's also a matter of thinking the other way around: what if we drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted 100% to chair the SB, act as public relations, etc ? Best regards, -- Juanjo you can forward this email to the rest of the pcc. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 Juanjo Hierro : ________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 29 13:05:07 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:05:07 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> Message-ID: dear juanjo and all, > > Some additional comments. It was also expected that the Steering Board could > decide something? There is no change regarding this approach (a mandate from > each consortium to be able to vote and then that the decision could be put > in place for all projects) > > > I guess there are two sides of the coin: > > One is procedure to take decisions. Here, there it is still a bet for the > consensus. I believe there is no better choice because going for a voting > mechanism would lead to never-ending negotiations :-) > A different matter is whether decisions taken by the SB (by consesus) are > binding to the FI-PPP projects. There it is true that the only place where > something is said is on page 1 (table sumarizing key changes) and maybe it > would be worth moving this to the description of the SB: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. > Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and > agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > > Would you agree it would be enough by translating the text of the table on > page 1 to the description of the SB ? i do agree > > Composition of SB and AB are not clear: > > 15 people in SB with 2 people per project (we have 7 projects in phase 2) > and the new roles + chief architect, so clearly more than 15 > > > I guess it is a matter of dropping any reference to 15 people. i do agree > > For AB it is not clear to me if there are 2 people per project, or each > project must delegate someone > > > Regarding the AB, it shouldb be two people per project. This was one of > the things I asked to be fixed because was unclear ... > in the document they say "no change", so stick with this firmly! > > For the other roles, ti is clear that we need someone to manage the > operational team from Concord but they have no real power. > > > Yes, CONCORD, the Program Chairman, the Business Manager and the Technical > Advisor (despite we are saying that we would go for dropping this last one) > has no real power. But I guess nobody would agree given them any real power but if this the case, why they are there??? i think a good busness manager can do a looooot but he/she needs funding and team and power (perhaps a dedicated wg) to give indications (to say the least) to on going trials so to get real impact out of them. ciao, stefano > ... > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo > > > > > BR > > Thierry > > > > 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? : mardi 29 janvier 2013 11:52 > ? : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; stefano de panfilis > Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Hi all > > > > Of course, I agree with Juanjo?s comments, just some reinforcing issues: > > > > We just cannot pretend to continue as today. We need to introduce some > changes, otherwise the EC will say we do not want to improve. So we need to > propose things > > > > Once said that, I agree > > > > The idea of the TA is redundant. However, Thomas would do it well (we hope). > If it is not Thomas, we would need to check? We need to insist that the TA > is controlled by the SB and, particularly, by the AB and he/she is only > consultative. We could propose it is dropped but he could help to represent > the PPP at technical events > > > > The idea of the Business Manager is strange. I do not know how anybody can > do anything. However, it has not been approved yet, so we can propose the > EIB connection at the SB. However, as Juanjo says, we need to accept > something > > I like Stefano?s idea of linking to the EIB. > > > > The chairman. In fact, I think the project coordinator of CONCORD should > have this role. Representing the PPP is necessary and it cannot be done by > Juanjo or me. So, provided decisions are not taken by him alone, I see not > major problem. The only comment is that I do not understand why he/she has > to be different from CONCORD coordinator (?essentially he/she could do both) > > > > > > > > Br > > > > > > > > > > De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] En nombre de Juanjo Hierro > Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 11:22 > Para: stefano de panfilis > CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Hi all, > > Stefano has sent to me an email where he elaborated on his concerns and > has allowed me to forward it to you so here you are with my comments on his > comments. > > > > On 29/01/13 10:38, stefano de panfilis wrote: > > dear juanjo, > > > > somehow you touched exactly my points: > > > > 1. the ta is clearly dangerous and with the new proposal absolutely > redundant. > > let me explain: > > to the sb meeting you'll be permanently invited and as well to the ab > > meetings the sb chair migth come and he will. so what is for the ta? > > if he/she has to be "independent" can he/she work for any of the > > fi-ppp? the rules say yes, but rationality says clearly not! he/she is > > useless or even dangerous if he/sheis not coming from fi-ware, but > > again where is his/her need this case? if it is this to have an ab > > secretariat then this is completely different .... > > > > can you imagine the mess if this person is not thomas? i think good > > roles should be independent from the person! > > > Regarding the Technical Advisor, I agree there is a risk if not the right > person or someone we can trust. I took the opportunity to check with > Thomas whether he was aware about this role (since he is currently > participating in discussions about negotiations of phase 2 as part of > CONCORD) and whether it was matching the role he would play as CONCORD > representative participating as facilitator of the AB. He answered to me > that he was not aware of this role and even didn't understand it very well. > > Given these facts, maybe it would be worth asking for dropping it out. > > > > > > 2. the buisness/impact manager. > > from the experience from ict labs this person without a significant > > team can only organise meetings of doubtfull utility (in the end look > > at juan in fi-ware and he has a team!!!). > > so, from where they come the resources to fund the work of this > > person? where is the committment? how to measure the impcat? there > > will be specific indication given to uc if their trial are of no > > impact in real economy? > > may be they have in mind a "friend of friends" they have to give a > > role with nice business cards .... > > i definitively suggest to drop this or to have a strong link with eit labs > team. > > > Despite I don't have a strong opinion, I see some advantages for this > position: > > In general terms, the business/impact/exploitation WG is one WG where always > things work better if there is someone 100% devoted to the task and s/he > pushes. Currently, the WG is made up of good and talent people but people > that I'm afraid do not have their contribution to the WG as a main priority > ... > If the guy is a consultant that may actually help in writing stuff, not just > sake hands, and be able to exchange nice business cards ... I would see the > value ... maybe it's a matter of making this more explicit > > Besides this, you should also think the other way around: what if we drop > this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their money to > other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... wouldn't it > be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that is devoted > 100% to work for the business/exploitation/impact WG ? > > > > > > 3. the fi-ppp chairman > > id he/she is a ceo must have power otherwise again good for being the > > person providing nice interviews. please remeber that peter was not > > able to drive towards any decision and he has the power of the ec > > behind him. if projects they do not follow they simply do not follow > > ... > > besides that the indicated person has no glue whatsoever what is the > > fi-ppp. i firmly believe he/she must be elected/nominated within the > > eib. than i t migth be he/she will have an impact.... > > > I rather believe, to be straight and transparent, that this position is > for "being the person providing nice interviews" as you mention. Besides, > the chair of the SB (you need someone that moderates the discussions). > But, other thant that, If you read the text carefully, no power is given to > him. So indeed s/he is not a CEO (maybe we should drop that part of the > text), just a chair. > > Again, it's also a matter of thinking the other way around: what if we > drop this figure ? Well, the result is that CONCORD would spend their > money to other stuff (the same stuff they have spent their money on) ... > wouldn't it be better that at least they spend the money to hire a guy that > is devoted 100% to chair the SB, act as public relations, etc ? > > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > > > > > you can forward this email to the rest of the pcc. > > > > ciao, > > stefano > > > > 2013/1/29 Juanjo Hierro : > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete > altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages > that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 -- 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 From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Tue Jan 29 18:59:54 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:59:54 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] Presence at the MWC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear pepe, i plan to attend to both events. honestly i prefer to be there not the complete week, so please let me know where you see best my help. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC/WPL > > > > Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in Barcelona: > > > > There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona > > > > 1) MWB > > 2) A presentation at the FIRA > > > > > > MWC. > > The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . > Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the FI-WARE > presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo and myself will > take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary for any of you to > attend. We are preparing some posters and demonstrations and may be Carlos > will ask for your help. However, if any of you plan to attend the MWC and is > ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most appreciated. > > > > > > FIRA: The event is going to take place at FIRA > http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1 > > > > You can find all information and program at > http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 > > As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this WS > the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. Juanjo or > myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is reasonable that some > WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the details but it seems > reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, particularly those WP with > connection to other projects. If you cannot come, please try to find a > representative/replacement who can perform demonstrations and interface with > other projects (perhaps you can agree a common representation from 2-3 WP in > the same person, please try to organize yourself) > > Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 > -- 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 From jimenez at tid.es Tue Jan 29 20:39:45 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:39:45 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpl] Presence at the MWC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stefano I think march 1st in the morning is the best. As an alternative, the 25. BR -----Original Message----- From: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Sent: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 19:00 To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; Ana Garcia Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] Presence at the MWC dear pepe, i plan to attend to both events. honestly i prefer to be there not the complete week, so please let me know where you see best my help. ciao, stefano 2013/1/29 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear PCC/WPL > > > > Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in Barcelona: > > > > There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona > > > > 1) MWB > > 2) A presentation at the FIRA > > > > > > MWC. > > The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . > Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the > FI-WARE presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo > and myself will take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary > for any of you to attend. We are preparing some posters and > demonstrations and may be Carlos will ask for your help. However, if > any of you plan to attend the MWC and is ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most appreciated. > > > > > > FIRA: The event is going to take place at FIRA > http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1 > > > > You can find all information and program at > http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 > > As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this > WS the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. > Juanjo or myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is > reasonable that some WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the > details but it seems reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, > particularly those WP with connection to other projects. If you cannot > come, please try to find a representative/replacement who can perform > demonstrations and interface with other projects (perhaps you can > agree a common representation from 2-3 WP in the same person, please > try to organize yourself) > > Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR > > > > -- > > Jose Jimenez > > Tf 91 4832660 > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 > -- 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 ________________________________ 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 thierry.nagellen at orange.com Wed Jan 30 08:52:37 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:52:37 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Ericsson withdrawal in IoT Message-ID: <30259_1359532359_5108D147_30259_3445_4_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08D104@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Deal colleagues Here is my proposal for the IoT chapter to replace partially Ercisson and introduce an existing partner of the consortium to assume ETSI-M2M availability. To be discuss during the PCC. BR Thierry Nagellen Program Manager Future Internet Orange Labs Networks & Carriers 905 rue Albert Einstein 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex +33 492 94 52 84 +33 679 85 08 44 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ericsson satus in IoT.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 36159 bytes Desc: Ericsson satus in IoT.pptx URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed Jan 30 09:00:19 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:00:19 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> Message-ID: <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Wed Jan 30 09:21:09 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:21:09 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> Message-ID: <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Dear Jos?, Dear Juanjo, Dear PCC Colleagues, Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) of the new proposed governance. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 ? : stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean-THA_PBisson.doc Type: application/msword Size: 539136 bytes Desc: Proposed FI PPP Governance Structure v5 clean-THA_PBisson.doc URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 30 11:04:42 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:04:42 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] PCC meeting Message-ID: Link to the pre-minutes for tomorrow meeting https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit Please include other items As usual, we shall use powwownow (PIN: 050662) ________________________________ 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: 2088 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jimenez at tid.es Wed Jan 30 11:09:08 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:09:08 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they do not imply major modifications to the document Therefore, the proposed changes so far are * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Is my reading correct? I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the predrafted minutes is https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# BR De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Importancia: Alta Dear Jos?, Dear Juanjo, Dear PCC Colleagues, Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) of the new proposed governance. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 ? : stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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 ________________________________ 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 Wed Jan 30 19:08:32 2013 From: nuria.delama at atosresearch.eu (Nuria De-Lama Sanchez) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:08:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Coming events for FI-WARE_Presence at the MWC and FIA Dublin Message-ID: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Dear colleagues, Following the e-mail circulated by Pepe on the presence of FI-WARE in the MWC and the side event organized by the FI PPP in Barcelona I would like to provide some additional data and highlight some messages. ? MWC: FI-WARE will take advantage of the FI PPP stand at the event to show some basic info of the project through screens without any specific demo prepared on purpose for that. It will be straight forward dissemination for us. o If any of you is attending, let me know so that I can have an updated list of people from FI-WARE ? Side Event of the FI PPP (FIRA) o As said by Pepe, you can already register. Please, let me know who is coming to update the list (info http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 ) o First day will have presentations, but there will be representatives of the EC and the FI PPP Advisory Board, and therefore, we should show our commitment there o Besides a presentation by FI-WARE on day 1 we will have a workshop on Day 2 (agenda still in preparation). Send your ideas to Carlos, Pepe and myself. o The event will have an exhibition area. FI-WARE has requested this facility and we have sent a proposal for demos. This means that it would be nice to count on some of you to be present at the stand (28 Feb-1 March). Carlos will ask for more info/support for the demo preparation. Be aware that at this event there will be people from Phase I projects, but also people representing Use Case projects from Phase II: The workshop will probably bring questions that will require your presence. Besides Barcelona in February, there will be an important milestone for FI-WARE in FIA Dublin. This is the current status for FI-WARE: ? FIA Dublin (8-10 May): http://www.fi-dublin.eu/ ? We submitted a working session (the process was shred with all of you by e-mail): Accelerating Future Internet business opportunities through the Future Internet Core Platform . At the moment of writing this e-mail we have 92 votes, which means that we are ranked 2nd. Therefore, I hope it will go through. For its organization Carlos and me will get in contact with you. Mario, Peter and our PO Arian have been informed about it. ? We have also submitted a proposal for demonstration in FIA (a permanent stand to make demos on demand and be visible along the whole duration of the event) ? I have informed our PO, Peter and the responsible person for exhibitions in FIA (still waiting for their answer) ? Please, proceed to register and let me know who will attend so that we can coordinate our actions. A Pre-FIA workshop could be promoted by FI-WARE if you think this is appropriate. Deadline was last Friday 25th, but I could push if you think this is good for the project (hackathon, detailed demos and training...). If any of you is interested in details of the organization or wants to contribute specifically, send an e-mail to me. Best regards, 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 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: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 10:30 To: fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Ana Garcia Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Presence at the MWC Dear PCC/WPL Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in Barcelona: There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona 1) MWB 2) A presentation at the FIRA MWC. The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the FI-WARE presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo and myself will take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary for any of you to attend. We are preparing some posters and demonstrations and may be Carlos will ask for your help. However, if any of you plan to attend the MWC and is ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most appreciated. FIRA: The event is going to take place at FIRA http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1 You can find all information and program at http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this WS the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. Juanjo or myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is reasonable that some WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the details but it seems reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, particularly those WP with connection to other projects. If you cannot come, please try to find a representative/replacement who can perform demonstrations and interface with other projects (perhaps you can agree a common representation from 2-3 WP in the same person, please try to organize yourself) Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Jan 31 08:33:16 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:33:16 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Coming events for FI-WARE_Presence at the MWC and FIA Dublin In-Reply-To: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: <27899_1359617597_510A1E3D_27899_1080_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08D4B1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi all, I will be at the MWC and the FIRA event for Instant Mobility so to optimize the time spent for this event I can find of course some time to represent Fi-Ware. BR Thierry De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Nuria De-Lama Sanchez Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 19:09 ? : JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Coming events for FI-WARE_Presence at the MWC and FIA Dublin Dear colleagues, Following the e-mail circulated by Pepe on the presence of FI-WARE in the MWC and the side event organized by the FI PPP in Barcelona I would like to provide some additional data and highlight some messages. ? MWC: FI-WARE will take advantage of the FI PPP stand at the event to show some basic info of the project through screens without any specific demo prepared on purpose for that. It will be straight forward dissemination for us. o If any of you is attending, let me know so that I can have an updated list of people from FI-WARE ? Side Event of the FI PPP (FIRA) o As said by Pepe, you can already register. Please, let me know who is coming to update the list (info http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993) o First day will have presentations, but there will be representatives of the EC and the FI PPP Advisory Board, and therefore, we should show our commitment there o Besides a presentation by FI-WARE on day 1 we will have a workshop on Day 2 (agenda still in preparation). Send your ideas to Carlos, Pepe and myself. o The event will have an exhibition area. FI-WARE has requested this facility and we have sent a proposal for demos. This means that it would be nice to count on some of you to be present at the stand (28 Feb-1 March). Carlos will ask for more info/support for the demo preparation. Be aware that at this event there will be people from Phase I projects, but also people representing Use Case projects from Phase II: The workshop will probably bring questions that will require your presence. Besides Barcelona in February, there will be an important milestone for FI-WARE in FIA Dublin. This is the current status for FI-WARE: ? FIA Dublin (8-10 May): http://www.fi-dublin.eu/ ? We submitted a working session (the process was shred with all of you by e-mail): Accelerating Future Internet business opportunities through the Future Internet Core Platform. At the moment of writing this e-mail we have 92 votes, which means that we are ranked 2nd. Therefore, I hope it will go through. For its organization Carlos and me will get in contact with you. Mario, Peter and our PO Arian have been informed about it. ? We have also submitted a proposal for demonstration in FIA (a permanent stand to make demos on demand and be visible along the whole duration of the event) --> I have informed our PO, Peter and the responsible person for exhibitions in FIA (still waiting for their answer) ? Please, proceed to register and let me know who will attend so that we can coordinate our actions. A Pre-FIA workshop could be promoted by FI-WARE if you think this is appropriate. Deadline was last Friday 25th, but I could push if you think this is good for the project (hackathon, detailed demos and training...). If any of you is interested in details of the organization or wants to contribute specifically, send an e-mail to me. Best regards, 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 [cid:349045816 at 01072011-319C] 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: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 10:30 To: fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Ana Garcia Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Presence at the MWC Dear PCC/WPL Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in Barcelona: There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona 1) MWB 2) A presentation at the FIRA MWC. The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the FI-WARE presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo and myself will take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary for any of you to attend. We are preparing some posters and demonstrations and may be Carlos will ask for your help. However, if any of you plan to attend the MWC and is ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most appreciated. FIRA: The event is going to take place at FIRA http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1 You can find all information and program at http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this WS the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. Juanjo or myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is reasonable that some WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the details but it seems reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, particularly those WP with connection to other projects. If you cannot come, please try to find a representative/replacement who can perform demonstrations and interface with other projects (perhaps you can agree a common representation from 2-3 WP in the same person, please try to organize yourself) Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- 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 jimenez at tid.es Thu Jan 31 09:50:44 2013 From: jimenez at tid.es (JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:50:44 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: Dear all We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP partners" and not by the EIB * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the EIB. * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG decides in case of conflict." * The Technical Advisor disappears * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said that would be decided later. In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject to the discussions on Monday and your comments Best regards 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, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they do not imply major modifications to the document Therefore, the proposed changes so far are * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Is my reading correct? I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the predrafted minutes is https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# BR De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Importancia: Alta Dear Jos?, Dear Juanjo, Dear PCC Colleagues, Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) of the new proposed governance. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 ? : stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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 ________________________________ 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 -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Ragnar.Bergstrom at ec.europa.eu" Subject: FI-PPP Governance: revised draft for DoW Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:25:36 +0000 Size: 621282 URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jan 31 10:08:08 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:08:08 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: <510A3478.6060101@tid.es> Hi, It is also important to highlight that it is the intention of the EC, as explicitly stated in the email of Peter, to make this document be part of the DoWs, therefore it will become a contractual obligation at least for new projects (although I guess they may require to add it in our next amendments also). Note that text in the DoWs prevails over the Collaboration Agreement, so I guess formally there is no need indeed to change the Collaboration Agreement. 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 31/01/13 09:50, JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO wrote: Dear all We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP partners" and not by the EIB * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the EIB. * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG decides in case of conflict." * The Technical Advisor disappears * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said that would be decided later. In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject to the discussions on Monday and your comments Best regards 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, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they do not imply major modifications to the document Therefore, the proposed changes so far are * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Is my reading correct? I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the predrafted minutes is https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# BR De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Importancia: Alta Dear Jos?, Dear Juanjo, Dear PCC Colleagues, Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) of the new proposed governance. 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 Juanjo Hierro Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 ? : stefano de panfilis Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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 ________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com Thu Jan 31 10:23:16 2013 From: WOLFSTAL at il.ibm.com (Yaron Wolfsthal) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:23:16 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: New proposed governance structure Message-ID: Juanjo, all IBM strongly agrees that "the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model". Regards Yaron ----- Forwarded by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM on 31/01/2013 11:20 AM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro To: stefano de panfilis , Cc: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 30/01/2013 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: Drop the role of the Technical Advisor Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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-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 jhierro at tid.es Thu Jan 31 11:06:41 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:06:41 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fw: New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <510A4231.9070307@tid.es> Dear Yaron, Please refer to the very last draft text circulated this morning by Jose Jimenez. Nevertheless, for your knowledge, any reference to IPRs has been dropped from the final text proposed by the EC. It seems like they have taken this comment, which we had anticipated to them, already into account. 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 31/01/13 10:23, Yaron Wolfsthal wrote: Juanjo, all IBM strongly agrees that "the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model". Regards Yaron ----- Forwarded by Yaron Wolfsthal/Haifa/IBM on 31/01/2013 11:20 AM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro To: stefano de panfilis , Cc: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 30/01/2013 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Hi all, So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and following discussions: * Drop the role of the Technical Advisor * Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: * The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. * Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the document * Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus * Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid inconsistencies Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that introducing the above changes is generally agreed. There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new proposed governance structure. Your feedback is welcome. 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-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 stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Thu Jan 31 13:35:21 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:35:21 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: dear jose, i still see some problems in the current text: 1. about the eib the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this should be done under the coordination of the ec. 2. about the pc this sentence "The PC also acts as a ?mediator? between two or more partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by the pc. 3. about pcg and ag i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. 4. the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the eib meetings. ciao, stefano 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear all > > > > We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, > based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It > is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. > > > > The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as > compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows > > > > > > ? Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB > (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of > the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented > > ? The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides > which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. > > ? Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP > partners" and not by the EIB > > ? The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to > coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. > The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the > EIB. > > ? The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to > have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG > decides in case of conflict." > > ? The Technical Advisor disappears > > ? The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has > already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to > clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now > > ? They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project > Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB > > ? It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said > that would be decided later. > > > > > > In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject > to the discussions on Monday and your comments > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 > Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they > do not imply major modifications to the document > > > > > > > > Therefore, the proposed changes so far are > > > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be > decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Is my reading correct? > > > > > > I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the > predrafted minutes is > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# > > > > > > BR > > > > De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 > Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal > Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > Importancia: Alta > > > > Dear Jos?, > > Dear Juanjo, > > Dear PCC Colleagues, > > > > Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) > of the new proposed governance. > > > > 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 Juanjo Hierro > Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 > ? : stefano de panfilis > Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Hi all, > > So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and > following discussions: > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that > introducing the above changes is generally agreed. > > There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final > section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe > that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to > this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes > regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the > governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would > actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new > proposed governance structure. > > > Your feedback is welcome. > > 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > -- 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 From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Thu Jan 31 14:32:47 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:32:47 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Coming events for FI-WARE_Presence at the MWC and FIA Dublin In-Reply-To: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: dear nuria, i'm registered for both wmc and fira. although not yet decided whe to arrive at wmc for sure i'll stay for the whole fira. i'll be in dublin as well. let me know on how can i help, happy to make presentations or lead ws, simply be at the stand, or whatever you migth need. ciao, stefano 2013/1/30 Nuria De-Lama Sanchez > Dear colleagues,**** > > ** ** > > Following the e-mail circulated by Pepe on the presence of FI-WARE in the > MWC and the side event organized by the FI PPP in Barcelona I would like to > provide some additional data and highlight some messages.**** > > ** ** > > **? ***MWC**:* FI-WARE will take advantage of the FI PPP stand at > the event to show some basic info of the project through screens without > any specific demo prepared on purpose for that. It will be straight forward > dissemination for us. **** > > **o **If any of you is attending, *let me know so that I can have an > updated list of people from FI-WARE* > > ** ** > > **? ***Side Event of the FI PPP (FIRA)* > > **o **As said by Pepe, you can already register. Please, *let me know > who is coming* to update the list (info > http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993)*** > * > > **o **First day will have presentations, but there will be > representatives of the EC and the FI PPP Advisory Board, and therefore, we > should show our commitment there**** > > **o **Besides a presentation by FI-WARE on day 1 we will have a > workshop on Day 2 (agenda still in preparation). *Send your ideas to > Carlos, Pepe and myself*.**** > > **o **The event will have an exhibition area. FI-WARE has requested > this facility and we have sent a proposal for demos. This means that it > would be nice to count on some of you to be present at the stand (28 Feb-1 > March). Carlos will ask for more info/support for the demo preparation. ** > ** > > ** ** > > Be aware that at this event there will be people from Phase I projects, > but also people representing Use Case projects from Phase II: The workshop > will probably bring questions that will require your presence.**** > > ** ** > > Besides Barcelona in February, there will be an important milestone for > FI-WARE in FIA Dublin. This is the current status for FI-WARE:**** > > ** ** > > **? ***FIA Dublin (8-10 May): **http://www.fi-dublin.eu/*** > > **? **We submitted a *working session* (the process was shred > with all of you by e-mail): Accelerating Future Internet business > opportunities through the Future Internet Core Platform. > At the moment of writing this e-mail we have 92 votes, which means that we > are ranked 2nd. Therefore, I hope it will go through. For its > organization Carlos and me will get in contact with you. Mario, Peter and > our PO Arian have been informed about it.**** > > **? **We have also submitted a *proposal for demonstration in FIA*(a permanent stand to make demos on demand and be visible along the whole > duration of the event) ? I have informed our PO, Peter and the > responsible person for exhibitions in FIA (still waiting for their answer) > **** > > **? **Please, proceed to register and let me know who will attend > so that we can coordinate our actions.**** > > ** ** > > A Pre-FIA workshop could be promoted by FI-WARE if you think this is > appropriate. Deadline was last Friday 25th, but I could push if you think > this is good for the project (hackathon, detailed demos and training?).*** > * > > ** ** > > If any of you is interested in details of the organization or wants to > contribute specifically, send an e-mail to me. **** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > ** ** > > [image: cid:349045816 at 01072011-3195]**** > > *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 **** > > [image: cid:349045816 at 01072011-319C]**** > > ** ** > > *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:* martes, 29 de enero de 2013 10:30 > *To:* fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Cc:* Ana Garcia > *Subject:* [Fiware-pcc] Presence at the MWC**** > > ** ** > > Dear PCC/WPL**** > > **** > > Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in > Barcelona: **** > > **** > > There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona**** > > **** > > 1) MWB**** > > 2) A presentation at the FIRA**** > > **** > > **** > > *MWC. ***** > > The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . > Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the FI-WARE > presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo and myself will > take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary for any of you to > attend. We are preparing some posters and demonstrations and may be Carlos > will ask for your help. However, if any of you plan to attend the MWC and > is ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most > appreciated. **** > > **** > > **** > > *FIRA*: The event is going to take place at FIRA > http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1**** > > **** > > You can find all information and program at > http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993**** > > As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this WS > the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. Juanjo > or myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is reasonable that > some WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the details but it seems > reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, particularly those WP with > connection to other projects. If you cannot come, please try to find a > representative/replacement who can perform demonstrations and interface > with other projects (perhaps you can agree a common representation from 2-3 > WP in the same person, please try to organize yourself)**** > > Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend**** > > **** > > Best regards**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > BR**** > > **** > > --**** > > Jose Jimenez**** > > Tf 91 4832660**** > > **** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > > 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**** > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.gif Type: image/gif Size: 816 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 78 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jhierro at tid.es Thu Jan 31 15:03:53 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:03:53 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: <510A79C9.8030102@tid.es> Hi, Just a general comment. I believe that you are right in the diagnosis of one major "fundamental" change in the governance structure: the program would become "company-driven" rather than "project-driven". Whether this change is good or not may lead to several interesting discussions. You have raised some concerns, but I guess you agree that no company would like to see how a strategic bet it makes as a company in a project like FI-WARE gets driven by a set of UC "projects". In my opinion, letting the FI-PPP be "project-driven", particularly UC project-driven, implies a lot of issues. 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 31/01/13 14:08, Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. > > Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. > > Please find in the following some comments: > > * General comments: > o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. > o The decision power is now in a board. > o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. > The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance > by the Executive Industry Board. > o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model > text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included > in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. > o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, > which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, > partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia > Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly > accepted legal changes via Annex II. > > * Executive Industry Board: > o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as > a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the > overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business > strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme > communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business > related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. > Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, > which are made by other companies. > o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, > which are members of the EIB. > o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, > if companies following them get economic problems. > o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. > > * Program Chair: > o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, > which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. > o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and > the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at > the Advisory Board. > > * Project Coordination Group: > o The former proposed role basically remains. > o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. > > * Project Management Office: > o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB > is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of > collaborative research. > > * Project Coordinator: > o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and > supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his > partners, because resources have to come from partners. > o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company > hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. > o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model > project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which > they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. > > Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. > > Best regards, > > Werner > > > Dr. Werner Mohr > Head of Research Alliances > Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH > CEF T&S IE Research Alliances > St. Martin Strasse 76 > 81541 Munich > Germany > Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 > Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 > Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 > e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com > > Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH > Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel > Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich > Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM > To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > dear jose, > > i still see some problems in the current text: > > 1. about the eib > the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair > based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is > in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is > the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the > decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this > should be done under the coordination of the ec. > > 2. about the pc > this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more > partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as > definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme > under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like > "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two > partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that > affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by > the pc. > > 3. about pcg and ag > i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts > between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. > > > 4. > the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly > > 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and > implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the > eib meetings. > > ciao, > stefano > > 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : >> Dear all >> >> >> >> We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, >> based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It >> is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. >> >> >> >> The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as >> compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows >> >> >> >> >> >> * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB >> (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of >> the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented >> >> * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides >> which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. >> >> * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP >> partners" and not by the EIB >> >> * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to >> coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. >> The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the >> EIB. >> >> * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to >> have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG >> decides in case of conflict." >> >> * The Technical Advisor disappears >> >> * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has >> already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to >> clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now >> >> * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project >> Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB >> >> * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said >> that would be decided later. >> >> >> >> >> >> In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject >> to the discussions on Monday and your comments >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 >> Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA >> CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they >> do not imply major modifications to the document >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, the proposed changes so far are >> >> >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be >> decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Is my reading correct? >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the >> predrafted minutes is >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# >> >> >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 >> Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO >> CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal >> Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> Importancia: Alta >> >> >> >> Dear Jos?, >> >> Dear Juanjo, >> >> Dear PCC Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) >> of the new proposed governance. >> >> >> >> 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 Juanjo Hierro >> Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 >> ? : stefano de panfilis >> Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and >> following discussions: >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that >> introducing the above changes is generally agreed. >> >> There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final >> section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe >> that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to >> this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes >> regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the >> governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would >> actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new >> proposed governance structure. >> >> >> Your feedback is welcome. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fiware-ga mailing list >> Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu >> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga >> > > ________________________________ 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 pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Thu Jan 31 21:40:32 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:40:32 +0100 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] R: Coming events for FI-WARE_Presence at the MWC and FIA Dublin In-Reply-To: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> References: <66E3B1FDDB04BE4D92DC3A2BA8D98D9A0192343E@INTMAIL03.es.int.atosorigin.com> Message-ID: Dear Nuria, I plan to attend the side event of FI PPP, assuming that I can book a hotel right now... I'll be therefore able to represent FI-WARE there, and probably I'll be representing somehow the Instant Mobility project from the TI side, if necessary (I'm in contact with my colleagues who probably won't be able to attend). BR Pier Da: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Nuria De-Lama Sanchez Inviato: mercoled? 30 gennaio 2013 19:09 A: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-pcc] Coming events for FI-WARE_Presence at the MWC and FIA Dublin Dear colleagues, Following the e-mail circulated by Pepe on the presence of FI-WARE in the MWC and the side event organized by the FI PPP in Barcelona I would like to provide some additional data and highlight some messages. ? MWC: FI-WARE will take advantage of the FI PPP stand at the event to show some basic info of the project through screens without any specific demo prepared on purpose for that. It will be straight forward dissemination for us. o If any of you is attending, let me know so that I can have an updated list of people from FI-WARE ? Side Event of the FI PPP (FIRA) o As said by Pepe, you can already register. Please, let me know who is coming to update the list (info http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993) o First day will have presentations, but there will be representatives of the EC and the FI PPP Advisory Board, and therefore, we should show our commitment there o Besides a presentation by FI-WARE on day 1 we will have a workshop on Day 2 (agenda still in preparation). Send your ideas to Carlos, Pepe and myself. o The event will have an exhibition area. FI-WARE has requested this facility and we have sent a proposal for demos. This means that it would be nice to count on some of you to be present at the stand (28 Feb-1 March). Carlos will ask for more info/support for the demo preparation. Be aware that at this event there will be people from Phase I projects, but also people representing Use Case projects from Phase II: The workshop will probably bring questions that will require your presence. Besides Barcelona in February, there will be an important milestone for FI-WARE in FIA Dublin. This is the current status for FI-WARE: ? FIA Dublin (8-10 May): http://www.fi-dublin.eu/ ? We submitted a working session (the process was shred with all of you by e-mail): Accelerating Future Internet business opportunities through the Future Internet Core Platform. At the moment of writing this e-mail we have 92 votes, which means that we are ranked 2nd. Therefore, I hope it will go through. For its organization Carlos and me will get in contact with you. Mario, Peter and our PO Arian have been informed about it. ? We have also submitted a proposal for demonstration in FIA (a permanent stand to make demos on demand and be visible along the whole duration of the event) --> I have informed our PO, Peter and the responsible person for exhibitions in FIA (still waiting for their answer) ? Please, proceed to register and let me know who will attend so that we can coordinate our actions. A Pre-FIA workshop could be promoted by FI-WARE if you think this is appropriate. Deadline was last Friday 25th, but I could push if you think this is good for the project (hackathon, detailed demos and training...). If any of you is interested in details of the organization or wants to contribute specifically, send an e-mail to me. Best regards, 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 [cid:image002.gif at 01CDFFFB.7CC51F60] 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: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 10:30 To: fiware-pcc; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Ana Garcia Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Presence at the MWC Dear PCC/WPL Just to inform you what is going to be the presence at the MWC in Barcelona: There is going to be two separate events collocated in Barcelona 1) MWB 2) A presentation at the FIRA MWC. The PPP has a boot in the MWC (Feb 25-Feb 28, Hall 8.1 Stand 8.1L4) . Enclosed is the agenda for demonstrations. You can see most of the FI-WARE presence is focused the 25. Normally, Nuria, Carlos, Juanjo and myself will take charge of this. In principle it is not necessary for any of you to attend. We are preparing some posters and demonstrations and may be Carlos will ask for your help. However, if any of you plan to attend the MWC and is ready to be around, please let us know. Your help would be most appreciated. FIRA: The event is going to take place at FIRA http://www.firabcn.es/en/venues_congress_centre. Feb 28- March 1 You can find all information and program at http://www.fi-ppp.eu/ai1ec_event/fi-ppp-large-event/?instance_id=26993 As you can see, FI-WARE is supposed to have a WS (1.30 Hours). In this WS the idea is to start collaboration with all second phase projects. Juanjo or myself (perhaps both) plan to attend, but I think it is reasonable that some WPL/WPA also attend. We have not decided yet the details but it seems reasonable to me that most WPL/WPA attend, particularly those WP with connection to other projects. If you cannot come, please try to find a representative/replacement who can perform demonstrations and interface with other projects (perhaps you can agree a common representation from 2-3 WP in the same person, please try to organize yourself) Please register yourself at the site if you plan to attend Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: From p.amon at siemens.com Thu Jan 24 17:58:41 2013 From: p.amon at siemens.com (Amon, Peter) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:58:41 -0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Patent request In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jose, dear all, the mentioned patent applications originate from Siemens' work done in the context of FI-WARE. (In general, Siemens informs its project partners about these kind of activities by sending a letter to the coordinator of the project.) One set of patent applications (our reference "201209689", mentioned in two of the letters) relates to a feature in our implementation of the CDVA GE. Of course, Siemens will act in accordance with the consortium agreement. Kind regards Peter ______________________________ Peter Amon Research and Technology Center Imaging and Computer Vision Siemens AG Corporate Technology - CT RTC ICV VIA-DE Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 (89) 636-54642 Fax: +49 (89) 636-51115 mailto:p.amon at siemens.com Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Gerhard Cromme; Managing Board: Peter Loescher, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Roland Busch, Brigitte Ederer, Klaus Helmrich, Joe Kaeser, Barbara Kux, Hermann Requardt, Siegfried Russwurm, Peter Y. Solmssen, Michael Suess; Registered offices: Berlin and Munich, Germany; Commercial registries: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, Munich, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-No. DE 23691322 From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2013 12:01 To: fiware-pcc; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu; Riedl, Johannes Cc: PILAR PLASENCIA MAESO; PABLO MERINO MORO; johanna at siemens.com; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Subject: [Fiware-ga] Patent request Dear PCC/GA I enclose this letters indicating some actions towards Patents related to FI-WARE initiated by Siemens We would kindly request Siemens to send us further information establishing whether those patents are considered essential and act accordingly to the conditions of the CA (enclosed) Thank you and Best regards BR -- Jose Jimenez Tf 91 4832660 ________________________________ 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 werner.mohr at nsn.com Thu Jan 31 14:08:25 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:08:25 -0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> Message-ID: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Dear Colleagues, from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. Please find in the following some comments: * General comments: o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. o The decision power is now in a board. o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance by the Executive Industry Board. o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly accepted legal changes via Annex II. * Executive Industry Board: o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, which are made by other companies. o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, which are members of the EIB. o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, if companies following them get economic problems. o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. * Program Chair: o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at the Advisory Board. * Project Coordination Group: o The former proposed role basically remains. o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. * Project Management Office: o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of collaborative research. * Project Coordinator: o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his partners, because resources have to come from partners. o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. Best regards, Werner Dr. Werner Mohr Head of Research Alliances Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH CEF T&S IE Research Alliances St. Martin Strasse 76 81541 Munich Germany Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 -----Original Message----- From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure dear jose, i still see some problems in the current text: 1. about the eib the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this should be done under the coordination of the ec. 2. about the pc this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by the pc. 3. about pcg and ag i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. 4. the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the eib meetings. ciao, stefano 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : > Dear all > > > > We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, > based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It > is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. > > > > The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as > compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows > > > > > > * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB > (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of > the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented > > * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides > which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. > > * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP > partners" and not by the EIB > > * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to > coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. > The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the > EIB. > > * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to > have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG > decides in case of conflict." > > * The Technical Advisor disappears > > * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has > already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to > clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now > > * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project > Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB > > * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said > that would be decided later. > > > > > > In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject > to the discussions on Monday and your comments > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 > Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they > do not imply major modifications to the document > > > > > > > > Therefore, the proposed changes so far are > > > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be > decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Is my reading correct? > > > > > > I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the > predrafted minutes is > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# > > > > > > BR > > > > De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 > Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal > Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > Importancia: Alta > > > > Dear Jos?, > > Dear Juanjo, > > Dear PCC Colleagues, > > > > Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) > of the new proposed governance. > > > > 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 Juanjo Hierro > Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 > ? : stefano de panfilis > Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu > Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > > > Hi all, > > So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and > following discussions: > > Drop the role of the Technical Advisor > Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: > > The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a > defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their > consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. > > Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical > representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the > document > Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus > Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid > inconsistencies > > Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that > introducing the above changes is generally agreed. > > There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final > section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe > that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to > this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes > regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the > governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would > actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new > proposed governance structure. > > > Your feedback is welcome. > > 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > -- 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga From werner.mohr at nsn.com Thu Jan 31 16:45:39 2013 From: werner.mohr at nsn.com (Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich)) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:45:39 -0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-ga] New proposed governance structure In-Reply-To: <510A79C9.8030102@tid.es> References: <510779D8.9010900@tid.es> <5107A2AF.3010908@tid.es> <7995_1359457028_5107AB04_7995_389_6_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C08CEB1@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5107B2BB.3020905@tid.es> <5108D313.9010409@tid.es> <12780_1359534263_5108D8B7_12780_9511_1_a994892c-a936-42fe-8129-ddc63a52e4bb@THSONEA01HUB02P.one.grp> <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BA99@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> <510A79C9.8030102@tid.es> Message-ID: <79C4240C13B4C84B910850B96B1B43120558BB6F@DEMUEXC035.nsn-intra.net> Dear Juanjo, it is not the question, whether the PPP is company- or UC-project-driven. At the end of the day it is always driven by project partners, who spend resources and who are supporting agreed objectives. I do not agree with your statement that in the newly proposed structure the PPP is driven by companies. The EIB with the described mandate in the new text would be the driving force. It comprises 15 companies out of all FI-PPP partners. There are much more than 15 companies involved in the PPP. Therefore, the reality would be that the PPP would be driven by a subset of companies. That would be fine for strategic guidance for consideration however without decision-making power. This was proposed by the industry task force. The overall text with respect to the description of EIB, PCG and PO makes clear that a top-down decision-making process should be established. The new mandate is going very far: "The Executive Industry Board is responsible for maintaining a dialogue and continuity between the high-level management representatives of the industry participants. The EIB elaborates the strategic and overall steering of the Future Internet PPP in terms strategic choices, the industrial commercialisation/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communications and visibility. In addition, and helps to define the exploitation vision of the FI PPP which is revised every year. In addition, the EIB oversees and supports the business development and other dissemination activities of the FI PPP. tThe EIB and the SB acts as ambassadors for the FI PPP, perform high level communication on the impact of the pProgramme results and communicate with high level EU representatives (Commissioners, MEPs, etc.) and industry boards in order to ensure coherence and impact." The first paragraph is talking about steering. In later parts of the documents decisions of the EIB are mentioned. In addition the part of the sentence " in terms strategic choices, the industrial commercialisation/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP" is directly trying to influence business decisions of project partners. In particular these partners, which are not member of the EIB, would have to follow such decisions without any influence. This is not acceptable. Business-related decisions can only be made by organizations based on their own judgement and discretion and not by others, who not have any accountability for the impact on that organization. Coming back to my example, will Telefonica accept business-related decisions by your competitors in the EIB, if Telefonica would not be in the EIB. This is valid for any other organization. The new description of the Coordinator makes clear that project partners are basically providers of resources without much to say, where and for which tasks the resources should be used. If the coordinator would get executive power to staff and support program activities without asking his partners, we have a serious problem. In reality in FINSENY we supported all these activities after discussed this as coordinator with my partners and then we allocated the resources. Therefore, we have serious concerns. Best regards, Werner Dr. Werner Mohr Head of Research Alliances Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH CEF T&S IE Research Alliances St. Martin Strasse 76 81541 Munich Germany Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 -----Original Message----- From: ext Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:04 PM To: Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: ext stefano de panfilis; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure Hi, Just a general comment. I believe that you are right in the diagnosis of one major "fundamental" change in the governance structure: the program would become "company-driven" rather than "project-driven". Whether this change is good or not may lead to several interesting discussions. You have raised some concerns, but I guess you agree that no company would like to see how a strategic bet it makes as a company in a project like FI-WARE gets driven by a set of UC "projects". In my opinion, letting the FI-PPP be "project-driven", particularly UC project-driven, implies a lot of issues. 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 31/01/13 14:08, Mohr, Werner (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > from a first review I summarized in the following some comments. In general we have serious concerns with this approach. > > Jose mentioned that the text could be accepted, because "the" companies are deciding in the Executive Industry Board. In the Executive Industry Board there are not all partners or all companies represented. This will be a selected set of 15 companies out of today 160+ FI-PPP partner organizations. According to the mandate of the EIB these 15 companies are finally making decisions in a top down approach, which should be implemented by the PC and the PCG. Such decisions are related to strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme communication and visibility. Can we assume that companies, which are not represented in the EIB, are bound to industrial commercialization/business strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP, which impact their business. I do not believe that e.g. Telefonica, if not member of the EIB, would accept business related decisions by its competitors or suppliers, who may be members of the EIB. > > Please find in the following some comments: > > * General comments: > o With this document the PPP should be implemented like a company. > o The decision power is now in a board. > o The decision making should now be top-down and not bottom-up from the projects. > The projects and project partners should only have the role to execute guidance > by the Executive Industry Board. > o In order to find a way to implement such changes with respect to a fixed model > text for the Grant Agreement and Special Clause 41 this text should be included > in the Description of Work, officially called Annex II - Technical Annex. > o That means major changes in the legal framework are hidden in a technical document, > which is usually not checked by these people, who are signing contracts. Therefore, > partners may run into the trap to sign a standard Grant Agreement and Consortia > Agreements and they may not be aware that with the Grant Agreement they implicitly > accepted legal changes via Annex II. > > * Executive Industry Board: > o The power is now with the Executive Industry Board. They try to implement this as > a company board. Before it was only elaborating a vision. Now they should steer the > overall PPP in terms of strategic choices, the industrial commercialization/business > strategy, the take-up and exploitation beyond the FI-PPP and the programme > communication and visibility. That means that this board will finally make business > related decisions. I do not believe that this can be accepted by project partners. > Everyone is making own business decisions and will definitely not follow decisions, > which are made by other companies. > o Such decisions would also require to open business strategies of these companies, > which are members of the EIB. > o The EIB does not have any responsibility for their business oriented decisions, > if companies following them get economic problems. > o There is a major mismatch between decision power and accountability. > > * Program Chair: > o The notion of a "CEO" indicates that they want to implement the PPP like a company, > which it is not and cannot be. FI-PPP is collaborative research. > o It is said that the Program Chair will put into action the guidance for the EIB and > the Advisory Board. Therefore, the decision power is at EIB and to some extend at > the Advisory Board. > > * Project Coordination Group: > o The former proposed role basically remains. > o The role is extended to implement operationally the decisions from the EIB. > > * Project Management Office: > o It should implement decisions by the EIB. This sentence confirms that the EIB > is taking decisions in a top-down manner, which is against the spirit of > collaborative research. > > * Project Coordinator: > o The basic description of the role is acceptable. However for staffing and > supporting programme activities the Coordinator needs a feedback with his > partners, because resources have to come from partners. > o It is not acceptable that the Coordinator simply decides like in a company > hierarchy about the allocation of resources of other organizations. > o The approach gives the impression that with accepting this governance model > project partners are losing all their rights how to use these resources, which > they are spending and where private organizations are funding 50 %. > > Nokia Siemens Networks are not involved in a Phase II use case project. However, we have to assume that the FI-WARE DoW should also be changed accordingly in order to get a consistent legal framework in Phase II and therefore Phase I partners in FI-WARE would be affected and have to make decisions, whether they want to accept this with all possible implications on FI-WARE. > > Best regards, > > Werner > > > Dr. Werner Mohr > Head of Research Alliances > Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH > CEF T&S IE Research Alliances > St. Martin Strasse 76 > 81541 Munich > Germany > Office phone: +49-89-5159-35117 > Office fax: +49-89-5159-35121 > Mobile phone: +49-171-3340 788 > e-Mail: werner.mohr at nsn.com > > Nokia Siemens Networks Management International GmbH > Gesch?ftsleitung / Board of Directors: Andreas Sauer, Ralf Dietzel > Sitz der Gesellschaft: M?nchen / Registered office: Munich > Registergericht: M?nchen / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 198081 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of ext stefano de panfilis > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:35 PM > To: JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO > Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure > > dear jose, > > i still see some problems in the current text: > > 1. about the eib > the sentence "Appointments will be coordinated by the programme chair > based on interest received by industrial actors within the FI-PPP" is > in contraddiction with what you said: or the eib is the driver or is > the pc. this sentence clear puts the composition of the eib under the > decision of the pc which we are absolutely against. i think this > should be done under the coordination of the ec. > > 2. about the pc > this sentence "The PC also acts as a "mediator" between two or more > partners in case of conflict, his advice shall be considered as > definitive" puts definitively the functioning of the full programme > under the pc. i think should revised and modified in something like > "the eib decide based on pc advise". please consider that if two > partners have disputes this my mostly mean business reasons that > affect the ful ppp staretgic functioning and this cannot be decided by > the pc. > > 3. about pcg and ag > i think under the current formulations there migth be sever conflicts > between the two bodies as duties are clearly overlapping. > > > 4. > the dissemination manager is mentioned but not described properly > > 5. the eib cannot facilitated by the bm, but he/she must follow and > implement its recommendations. of course he/she participates to the > eib meetings. > > ciao, > stefano > > 2013/1/31 JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO : >> Dear all >> >> >> >> We received yesterday the attached mail from the EC. They have provided, >> based on some of our comments, a new version of the governance document. It >> is (partially) based on some proposals and also on EC ideas. >> >> >> >> The changes proposed in this new version (attached to the mail) , as >> compared to the previous, can be summarized as follows >> >> >> >> >> >> * Strategic decisions and direction of the program are borne by the EIB >> (therefore by the companies). The Program Chairman (PC) acting on behalf of >> the EIB, responsible for such decisions are implemented >> >> * The EIB will consist of 15 large companies. It is unclear who decides >> which, although it appears that the EC will play a role in its composition. >> >> * Interestingly, the Program Chairman (PC) is elected by the "FI-PPP >> partners" and not by the EIB >> >> * The PCG (formerly SB) does not make decisions that discusses how to >> coordinate the effective implementation of the decisions taken at the EIB. >> The PC controls (partly at least) the PCG because it acts on behalf of the >> EIB. >> >> * The chief architect of FI-WARE, chairman of AG (formerly AB) happens to >> have greater decision-making on technical aspects: "The chairman of the AG >> decides in case of conflict." >> >> * The Technical Advisor disappears >> >> * The document make no reference to FI-WARE project as an example which has >> already provided its staff and resources to marketing issues. We need to >> clarify this, but it may be better not to make controversy now >> >> * They add the description of the "responsibilities" of a Project >> Coordinator and he/she is explicitly under control of the EIB >> >> * It strengthens the role of Business Manager (BM) when it previously said >> that would be decided later. >> >> >> >> >> >> In general, we (Telefonica) think we can live with the new proposal, subject >> to the discussions on Monday and your comments >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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, 30 de enero de 2013 11:09 >> Para: BISSON Pascal; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA >> CC: SIEUX Corinne; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Thank you for your comments Pascal. I think they are all right, even if they >> do not imply major modifications to the document >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, the proposed changes so far are >> >> >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor (alternative, this role will be >> decided by the SB in the first or second meeting) >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Is my reading correct? >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to remind you of our coming AC tomorrow. The link to the >> predrafted minutes is >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Zk_Vw0rKPpy2K6yiZeIyZuT-O_XKUvG__GFQAcH1ss/edit# >> >> >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> De: BISSON Pascal [mailto:pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com] >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 30 de enero de 2013 9:21 >> Para: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO >> CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; SIEUX Corinne; BISSON Pascal >> Asunto: RE: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> Importancia: Alta >> >> >> >> Dear Jos?, >> >> Dear Juanjo, >> >> Dear PCC Colleagues, >> >> >> >> Find attached to this email my review (incl. comments, suggested changes ) >> of the new proposed governance. >> >> >> >> 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 Juanjo Hierro >> Envoy? : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 09:00 >> ? : stefano de panfilis >> Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Objet : Re: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> So far, I have identified the following changes based on your input and >> following discussions: >> >> Drop the role of the Technical Advisor >> Copy the following text in the description of the Steering Board: >> >> The SB and the AB provide strong recommendations to projects according to a >> defined decision process. Projects coordinators have a mandate from their >> consortium to discuss and agree on recommendations of the SB and AB. >> >> Make sure that the text explains that the AB is formed by two technical >> representatives per project and nothing else is stated anywhere in the >> document >> Make it more explicit that the SB take decisions also based on consensus >> Drop any reference to limits in the number of members of the SB to avoid >> inconsistencies >> >> Any other changes ? If no comment is raised, we will assume that >> introducing the above changes is generally agreed. >> >> There is an additional one I would like to propose. There is a final >> section on "Expected changes to the Collaboration Agreement". I believe >> that this section should only refer to changes required to accomodate to >> this new governance model. Therefore, the point that refers to changes >> regarding IPRs should be dropped because don't have anything to do with the >> governance model. The rest are consistent and describe changes that would >> actually be required to align the Collaboration Agreement with the new >> proposed governance structure. >> >> >> Your feedback is welcome. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fiware-ga mailing list >> Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu >> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga >> > > ________________________________ 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 jdps at tid.es Fri Jan 25 20:21:32 2013 From: jdps at tid.es (JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:21:32 -0000 Subject: [Fiware-pcc] URGENT: withdrawal of Ericsson and data on Costs/funding justification of Ericsson until In-Reply-To: <5102707A.40004@tid.es> References: <5102707A.40004@tid.es> Message-ID: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C055D36@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Dear all, please find enclosed the remaining effort and maximum requested funding per WP due to the Ericsson's withdrawal on October 2012 (M18). [cid:image005.jpg at 01CDFB39.8E959DD0] For details of calculation, please find attached the Excel file. It is based in the current DoW and the breakdown of EAB's effort sent by Ericsson for the Periodic Reports of M1-M12 & M13-M18. BR Javier. De: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Enviado el: viernes, 25 de enero de 2013 12:46 Para: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; subsidies at tid.es Asunto: URGENT: withdrawal of Ericsson and data on Costs/funding justification of Ericsson until Dear all, Regretfully, we have to communicate the complete withdrawal of Ericsson in the FI-WARE project. Some of you may have already been notified by the Ericsson representative in your WP, but let this email being forwarded work as official communication. Withdrawn of Ericsson from WP3 and WP9 had already been announce time ago. It had been properly handled by the corresponding WPLs and the necessary changes in the new amendment of the DoW were already introduced. Leaders of the rest of WPs where Ericsson was participating have now to prepare and assessment of the impact and come with a proposal before Wednesday 30th noon, on how to handle the withdrawn of Ericsson in their corresponding WPs, including a proposal on how funding initially assigned to Ericsson can be transferred to other partners that can take over the role of Ericsson. Their proposal will be discussed in the Management PCC meeting that has been call on Thursday 31st, 15:00 CET. Javier de Pedro, in copy of this mail, will send the information about remaining funding associated to Ericsson after month 18th to each of the WPLs where Ericsson was involved. Available funding will help you to make a proposal about PMs to allocate to other partners that can take over the role of Ericsson. Please also consider the opportunity to keep part of the funding available for future unforeseen needs of your WP, i.e., it's not a matter of assigning the maximum PMs possible to the partner who can take over the role of Ericsson. These remaining funding would be allocated to the WPL or Telefonica, to be transferred later on, whatever option is preferred by the WPL. 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: Ericsson in FIWARE Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:54:55 +0000 From: Henrik Abramowicz To: Juanjo Hierro , "JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO (jimenez at tid.es)" CC: Magnus Madfors , Anders Casp?r Dear Juanjo and Jose, As you have noticed we have not been so active lately in FIWARE and I am sorry to inform you that Ericsson will no longer be able to participate in FIWARE. You might also have noticed in media that Ericsson is currently downsizing and re-organising and we will have even less resources for FIWARE. This means that we will have to withdraw from FIWARE and I am personally sorry for that and that it might hurt the project inadvertently. We need to have a discussion on the withdrawal and how limit the effects for FIWARE. I have possibility for a telco already on Friday afternoon it that suits you BR Henrik HENRIK ABRAMOWICZ M Sc Ericsson AB Ericsson Research F?r?gatan 6 164 80 Stockholm, Sweden Phone +46 10 714 6608 SMS/MMS + 46 (0) 70 540 33 72 henrik.abramowicz at ericsson.com www.ericsson.com [http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign] This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer ________________________________ 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: image003.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1417 bytes Desc: image003.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 20657 bytes Desc: image004.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61131 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE-withdrawal of Ericsson.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 216635 bytes Desc: FI-WARE-withdrawal of Ericsson.xlsx URL: