[Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure

Juanjo Hierro jhierro at tid.es
Tue Jan 29 12:30:03 CET 2013

Previous message: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure
Next message: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 29/01/13 11:57, thierry.nagellen at orange.com<mailto: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> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JOSE JIMENEZ DELGADO
Envoyé : mardi 29 janvier 2013 11:52
À : JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; stefano de panfilis
Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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)

De: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] 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<mailto: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 <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>:

________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 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/edef8880/attachment.html>

Previous message: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure
Next message: [Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Fiware-pcc mailing list

You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy