[Fiware-pcc] New proposed governance structure

[stefano de panfilis]

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
> Envoyé : mardi 29 janvier 2013 11:52
> À : 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 <jhierro at tid.es>:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
> situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
> situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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



--
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