Hi Matteo, We actually updated the agenda including some ideas from Peter some hours after that e-mail. Please, check again and let me know. Best regards, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Ralli Ucendo (ralli at tid.es<mailto:ralli at tid.es>) Cell: +34696923588 Twitter: @carlosralli Product Development & Innovation (Telefónica Digital) Telefónica I+D SAU Madrid, Spain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Follow FI-WARE project (Future Internet Services Core Platform): Website: http://www.fi-ware.eu Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 Twitter: @fiware LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ El 02/05/2012, a las 12:09, Matteo Melideo escribió: Dear Carlos, sorry if I jump into this discussion only now but I was out office for few days. I would like to finalize the agenda asap as it is extremely difficult for us to involve all the interested partners to join. However, coming back to the point 4) raised by peter, I think that for us to have the session on Tools on the last day (Thu the 24th of May) still makes perfectly sense. In fact, listen to the Developers' Community and Tools without having any any idea about what the GEs are is useless and, in addition, listen to this session with a deeper understanding of the various GEs, could allow the UCs projects to provide us feedbacks and comments on how to improve the current solution proposed. Said that, it will be more than welcome if other UCs projects representatives will take part to our session other than the two already who have already expressed their interest, on this I fully agree with Peter. Best regards, Matteo Il 30/04/2012 10:54, CARLOS RALLI UCENDO ha scritto: Dear Peter, Thanks for your detailed feedback and suggestions. We are studying your proposed changes and other's input so we can generate a refined one including part of your input right today. Some quick comments: 1. I propose a slightly different time allocation, with a shorter lunch break, shorter sessions after lunch and two breaks in the afternoon. I think this will be more convenient: I see both proposals mean the same per-day 'presentation time' = 510 min. However your proposal considers only 45' minutes for lunch, According to my experience, finish morning sessions, guiding people to the lunch room, eating and coming back normally takes around 60' at least. Additionally, your proposed lunch time is 13:15 and normally going a bit before is more efficient as lunch lines are less crowded. Let me check these fine-tune details with the host. Regarding the two last sessions, we intentionally created two different slots (120' & 90') as UC have different needs for presentation/discussion. 2. On the first week there is time allocated for 5 UC presentations. On the second week for 6 UC presentations. But we have only 8 UCs. This means that some UCs will be presented twice. I think this is not required. One presentation per UC is enough. The UC should select if it should be in the first week or the second week, but not in both. The organizer should make an effort to have 4 UC presentations in each week. I am not sure to understand which kind of efforts have to be made by the organizer on this. The fact is that there is room for up to 6 UC per week presentations and there are only 5 UCs attending the first week, while all 8 are present in the second shift. Also some UC have communicated that they may need more time that what is scheduled for them in the 1st week. Taking all this into account, we propose 5 presentations in the 1st week (although we could reduce to 4 later on depending on UCs feedback). For the second week, obviously, we might have the 3 remaining UCs and, as long as there is room enough for 3 more, we may select those ones presenting the 1st week that request more space for discussion. I am not sure that your 4+4 is a flexible proposal when some UCs may request more. Let us give the max number of slots 5+6 and then we cut as possible, right? 3. Only GEs for the first release should be addressed in the education session. GEs for the second release will not be used by any UC (as they will be available only AFTER the end of all UC projects). By focusing only on the first release you may cut the number of GEs for cloud hosting from 9 to 4, reducing the time required for the cloud chapter accordingly. Fully agree, just 1st release GEs/features. However, requested time will be defined by FI-WARE chapter leaders. 4. "Developers' Community and Tools" has only 2 GEs and is probably important to everyone. Perhaps it is possible to make it the first presentation with everybody attending it? I think 90 minutes may be enough. 5. I believe that "Security". With 6 GEs, may not need 10 hours. They may do with 5 hours. I'll check this with the corresponding WPl. Again thanks for your comments and the easy-to-understand way you provided your proposals. Best regards, El 29/04/2012, a las 15:32, Peretz Gurel escribió: Dear all, Some comments on the proposed agenda and suggestions from my perspective: 1. I propose a slightly different time allocation, with a shorter lunch break, shorter sessions after lunch and two breaks in the afternoon. I think this will be more convenient: Current time slots allocation: <image001.png> Proposed time slots allocation: <image004.jpg> 2. On the first week there is time allocated for 5 UC presentations. On the second week for 6 UC presentations. But we have only 8 UCs. This means that some UCs will be presented twice. I think this is not required. One presentation per UC is enough. The UC should select if it should be in the first week or the second week, but not in both. The organizer should make an effort to have 4 UC presentations in each week. 3. Only GEs for the first release should be addressed in the education session. GEs for the second release will not be used by any UC (as they will be available only AFTER the end of all UC projects). By focusing only on the first release you may cut the number of GEs for cloud hosting from 9 to 4, reducing the time required for the cloud chapter accordingly. 4. "Developers' Community and Tools" has only 2 GEs and is probably important to everyone. Perhaps it is possible to make it the first presentation with everybody attending it? I think 90 minutes may be enough. 5. I believe that "Security". With 6 GEs, may not need 10 hours. They may do with 5 hours. See attached an alternative plan implementing the above suggestions. There are significantly less parallel tracks. There is ample space marked "Spare" to add more training sessions, if needed. Best regards, Peretz Gurel European Projects Manager Athena security implementations Ltd Office: +972-3-5572548 Mobile: +972-54-4734045 Email: peretz at athenaiss.com<mailto:peretz at athenaiss.com> www.athenaiss.com<http://www.athenaiss.com/> From: fiware-training-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-training-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Alex Glikson Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:43 PM To: CARLOS RALLI UCENDO; Juanjo Hierro Cc: fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu> Subject: Re: [Fiware-training] 'FI-PPP Software Architects Week' Event proposal Dear Carlos, Juanjo, all, Three weeks before the target date, we don't have a well-defined agenda, so I can't tell people how to plan their trip -- if at all. >From the Cloud perspective, 1-2 hours would probably be enough to give a high-level overview of Cloud GEs -- to a "general" audience, not particularly interested in details (and not 2-3 days as outlined in the agenda now). Plus we would want to attend couple of slots dedicated to UC presentations. There is no point in traveling to Zurich to participate few hours of meetings, which could have been conducted via phone equally well. So, unless we have a well-defined agenda for the rest of the time, with committed attendance of relevant people from FI-WARE chapters and UC projects (taking into consideration concurrency between sessions, attendance constraints, etc), the risk of not having productive interlocks is too high. With such a high level of risk, I wonder whether it is worth spending time and travel expenses. Maybe we can schedule high-level overview presentations of each chapter and each UC project over phone (a "virtual" F2F), and postpone the "physical" F2F interlocks until the exact goal & methodology are clear. Regards, Alex From: CARLOS RALLI UCENDO <ralli at tid.es<mailto:ralli at tid.es>> To: Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Cc: "fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu>" <fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu>> Date: 24/04/2012 11:59 PM Subject: Re: [Fiware-training] 'FI-PPP Software Architects Week' Event proposal ________________________________ Alex, In the excel sheet we shared with all UC projects they rated their interest on specific GEs for all FI-WARE chapters. What we can and we should guarantee then is avoiding overlap of sessions describing GEs with the highest scores. Additionally, two separate editions in different weeks enable UC projects to attend more parallel sessions too. I would generally agree with your request of more discussions rather than plain overviews (in both directions) too although, IMHO, I would be happy if we close the significant knowledge/understanding gap on the other party's architecture. Later on, bileteral discussions and/or joint discussions over e-mail would be indeed easier. However, We'll double check other possibilities and we are indeed open to consider all feasible suggestions on organization improving efficiency and potential results. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Best regards. El 24/04/2012, a las 21:20, "Alex Glikson" <GLIKSON at il.ibm.com<mailto:GLIKSON at il.ibm.com>> escribió: Dear all, I am somewhat concerned that the sessions might end up being less efficient than expected -- due to concurrency between the different chapter tracks, and limited availability of representatives from the various UC projects. For example, the sessions on Cloud, Data, IoT and Security are currently planned to happen in parallel (at least partially). Can we guarantee that all the UC projects interested in these chapters will send enough representatives in order to cover 4 parallel tracks? For Cloud (which I lead), besides just giving a general overview of our GEs, I would like to make sure that we have enough time for discussion with all the interested UC projects on each of the GEs, focusing on the way each of the UC projects envisions to use those GEs. Maybe even dedicate short sessions (e.g., 1 hour long) to each of the individual (relevant) UC projects. But how can I decide on the order, to make sure the relevant UC people can attend, and do not have conflicts with other sessions happening in parallel? Perhaps, it would be a good idea to use the data about expected attendance and interest in the various GEs to do a more fine-grained scheduling of sessions. Is this indeed the plan? Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com<mailto:glikson at il.ibm.com> | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 From: CARLOS RALLI UCENDO <ralli at tid.es<mailto:ralli at tid.es>> To: "fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu>" <fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu>>, Date: 24/04/2012 06:56 PM Subject: [Fiware-training] 'FI-PPP Software Architects Week' Event proposal Sent by: fiware-training-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-training-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> ________________________________ Dear colleagues, Find enclosed a proposal for the above mentioned event based on all FI-PPP Use-case projects plus FI-WARE team inputs. The same event will be repeated in two different weeks or editions: May 21st-24th & June 4th-7th. The event actually comprises two threads: 'FI-WARE Architecture Educational Sessions' and 'Use-case projects Selected Scenarios'. The first edition (May 21st- 24th) will be kindly hosted by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW, http://www.zhaw.ch/en/zurich-university-of-applied-sciences.html). - The host is providing 3 rooms with 30 people capacity and 1 room for 45 people. - We are currently negotiating with the host a reduced attendance-fee (less than 200 euro) covering 7 Coffee-breaks service, 3 (Tue+Wed+Thu) lunches and Wifi access. Tentative agendas for both weekly events are available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArcymbqnpOfkdGJqeEFlblNEUkdxdkl2NW1sM0FWUUE#gid=0 (The excel file is also attached to this mail for your convenience). The agenda shows FI-WARE chapters to be presented and, at the end of each day, there are 1.5/2h slots available for use-case projects presentations to the FI-WARE team. Requested feedback at this point: 1) All attendees are expected to add an entry to the following registration form: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArcymbqnpOfkdGJqeEFlblNEUkdxdkl2NW1sM0FWUUE#gid=2 (Sheet 'Attendees_1st Week' in the same excel file). Deadline for registration is end of next week (May 4th). 2) Each UC project available in the first week edition is expected to send an e-mail back to me with their availability for the Scenarios presentation slot. For instance, "use-case project XX is able to make its presentation at slot UC1 or UC2 etc.". I believe Envirofi, Finseny, Instant Mobility, Outsmart and SmartAgriFood UC projects will be available for both the first and second weeks edition. On the other hand, Ficontent, Finest and Safecity projects will only be available in the second edition, AFAIK. Deadline for each UC project to communicate this is end of the present week (April 27th). The second edition (June 4th - 7th) will be most probably held in Madrid (TBC). Further details are still to be confirmed and will be posted here during the present week. Thanks for your participation. Best regards, -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Ralli Ucendo (ralli at tid.es<mailto:ralli at tid.es>) Cell: +34696923588 Twitter: @carlosralli Product Development & Innovation Telefónica I+D SAU Madrid, Spain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Follow FI-WARE project (Future Internet Services Core Platform): Website: http://www.fi-ware.eu<http://www.fi-ware.eu/> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 Twitter: @fiware LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "FI-PPP_Software_Architects_Week_20120424_v1.xls" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00001..htm" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-training mailing list Fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-training <ATT00001..txt> ________________________________ 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 <Alternative FIWARE training plan.xlsx> ________________________________ 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-training mailing list Fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-training at lists.fi-ware.eu> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-training <matteo_melideo.vcf> ________________________________ 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-training/attachments/20120503/d7be6eba/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy