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<http://www.tid.es>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro
FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect
You can follow FI-WARE at:
website: http://www.fi-ware.eu
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242
twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
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<mailto: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 <jimenez at tid.es><mailto:jimenez at tid.es>:
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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
Fiware-pcc mailing list
Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
_______________________________________________
Fiware-pcc mailing list
Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20130129/c7461a4b/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy