[Fiware-wpa] Fwd: Re: URGENT response: about 1st Open Call

[Juanjo Hierro]

Hi all,

  Please find bellow a relevant exchange of emails with our PO.   Bottom line: we will have three Open Calls instead of two, leaving the biggest share for the second.

  This gives us a little bit more of time for doing things the proper way.   Just focus on a very concrete list of rather clear and urgent topics for the first Open Call which would be kept scheduled by the end of January.

  Cheers,

-- Juanjo



-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: URGENT response: about 1st Open Call
Date:   Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:05:47 +0100
From:   Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To:     Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
CC:     Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu> <Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Annalisa.Bogliolo at ec.europa.eu>, Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu>, INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> <INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu><mailto:INFSO-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>


Hi Arian,

  Thanks for your response.   I fully agree with your proposed schema, both in terms of dates and funding distribution.   Also with the spirit linked to each call.  This is definitively much more realistic !

  Regarding structure of tasks, our idea is that the functionality to be supported by products submitted as proposal to the call should be document as a set of related Features listed in the FI-WARE Backlog.   Therefore, a "task" would map to a set of Features (all of them trying to describe features of the target product/development) rather than a single Feature.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo


On 07/12/11 16:14, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Hi Juanjo,

In principle, any modification to the open call set-up is possible, but requires an amendment (and therefore my agreement).

Given that there is so much at stake, I would indeed prefer to split the first open call, and redistribute the funding, and therefore have something like:
1) Jan 2012, 2-3 M€
2) Apr 2012, 7-8 M€
3) Jan 2012, 2-3 M€

The first one is to make sure things are in place, to learn the process and to do it right. You would only ask the things that you are sure of. Also, this date has been announced a few times now and should be kept (as much as possible).
The second one is the "big one". Putting it later than the first one should allow you to learn from the experience with the first call, and should give you enough time to define exactly what you need.
The third call is then to fill in the missing parts.

By the way, you should think well about how you want to structure the "tasks" (as mentioned in the Guidance Notes for Project Coordinators) you call for. Features are too low a level for that.

Best regards,
Arian.



________________________________
From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 4:29 PM
To: ZWEGERS Arian (INFSO)
Cc: jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro"
Subject: URGENT response: about 1st Open Call

Hi Arian,

  Among the several things going in parallel, we are now dealing (as you may guess :-) with the list of topics for the first Open Call.

  As you commented during the first offical review of the project, it is rather important that we address the Open Call in a proper manner, since there will be many eyes looking how we are going to handle it.   On the other hand, we must get the most from the money devoted to the Open Call, therefore, I believe we should be rather strict and just select those topics for which we can actually formulate a complete and detailed request for proposal.  I mean topics for which we can provide a detailed description, in terms of list of well-described Feature entries in the FI-WARE backlog, before the call is issued, that is, end of January 2012.

  I'm a bit concerned that we go for including topics in the first Open Call while they would definitively require more careful analysis.

  Therefore, my question is: would it be feasible to split the first Open Call into two subsequent Open Calls, one still there to be published by end of January 2012 and then leaving a second one in, let's say end of February or mid-March ?   Could we assign more than the 7 M€ initially assigned to the first Open Call to these two first Open Calls?

  My understanding is that the number of Open Calls, as well as the grant assigned to each Open Call were just indicative, but nothing that was written in stone.

  Your feedback is rather appreciated.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo

________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20111207/8a085036/attachment.html>