[Fiware-wpa] Discussion about format of deliverables in FI-WARE project

[Juanjo Hierro]

Hi all,

  Just to let you know that we are carrying out a debate with the EC regarding format of deliverables.

  We wish to get rid of unnecessary paperwork and the typical burocracy of EC FP projects.   We believe that FI-WARE should not only make the difference in terms of quality and impact of results, but the way the project is managed and followed-up/reviewed by the EC.    Not allowing to submit an URL to a Wiki as a deliverable makes no sense nowadays.   We believe this battle can be won since there is not strict legal/contractual arguments against the proposed approach and, more important, is common-sense.   But, of course, we have to show strong, altogether pressing on the same direction.

  Any reference you may have about projects where the approach we are pushing for has been accepted would be welcome (we found one, SENSEI, it a first searching).  It may add arguments in favor of our position in this debate.

  Best regards,

-- Juanjo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        On the issue about deliverables
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2011 16:39:04 +0200
From:   Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
To:     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>, 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:     jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>


Dear Peter and Arian,

  Thanks for the time discussing the issue about deliverables of the FI-WARE project.  It was helpful to understand your major concerns on the matter.   I hope it was also helpful for you to understand ours.

  There are two major issues you raised during our conversation:

 *   Ability to audit reviews of Wiki-based deliverables
 *   How to deal with a "moving target" while reviewing a very dynamic deliverable like the ones we have in FI-WARE

  Let me elaborate on both and how things we honestly believe they can be handled.

  Regarding ability to audit reviews of Wiki-based deliverables, we should be able to produce a snapshot of the Wiki contents (standard export MediaWiki functions) from FI-WARE.  Such snapshot can be later replicated (standard import MediaWiki function) on any independent and standard MediaWiki installation (that the EC may own, for instance).     By comparing contents of two subsequent snapshots, you would be able to demostrate existence of deliverables and how review of a given deliverable was addressed.   We believe this will solve the issue.

  Regarding review of Wiki-based deliverables, we can do two things (non-exclusive):

 *   Setup a MediaWiki instance based on the snapshot that we had generated for a given deliverable submission.   Such instance would be stable (no content change) for a reviewing period.   This instance would be accessible for reviewers who want to stick to a frozen version of the deliverable, which matches the version which was officially submitted.
 *   Allow that some FI-WARE reviewers perform their review on the contents of the dynamic, linked to the FI-WARE website, version of the Wiki if they wish.

  The first approach would be an approach fully aligned with the "traditional" approach, with the corresponding advantages/disadvantages:

 *   On one had they will know that they are reviewing a "frozen" document (don't know what is the advantage of this to be honest, but let's admit that they would have a better control about when they have finish the review of a given section)
 *   On the other hand, they may be reviewing contents available on day "X" (the date at which the deliverable was submitted) and at the time they start to review chapter "a", say it on date "Y", "Y" > "X", they will miss the opportunity to review the updated contents of chapter "a" that may have already been implemented in the public, linked to the FI-WARE website, version of the Wiki.   This is a disadvantage and they may even waist their time providing advice on how to solve some issue, when the fact is that issue may have already been solved (already detected by the FI-WARE team and fixed in the time period [X, Y)).   Note that this is something that is going to happen even if we are submitting deliverables in MS Word / .pdf format (you cannot prevent that the FI-WARE team keeps working on a document right after they have submitted it)

  The second approach would be optional but I guess preferred by some reviewers (I tell you it would be clearly the preferred one for me if I were a reviewer of a project like this).    It may have the following advantages

 *   The disadvantage mentioned in the second bullet of last paragraph simply goes away.
 *   Some reviewers won't be able to devote time to read a full deliverable the day after it has been submitted.   They will typically organize their time and, for large documents, will organize their time so that they review a deliverable submitted on date "X" so that they deal with chapter "a" in date "Y", chapter "b" in date "Z", etc.  X < Y < Z ...  By being able to review the most updated version of a given chapter, at the time they start to review it, their revision is more effective and more valuable.

  I hope you can see this with the eyes of who tries to make things more effective and useful while still being open to comply with some requirements.   There is a lot of expectation about this project and the PPP as a whole not just on the results that will be delivered but also on the way the program will be managed.   People is eager that there will be sign of change for something better than we have today in terms of processes and methodologies.   We shouldn't miss the opportunity.  We shouldn't let them down.

  BTW, for your convenience, I send you a copy of an official deliverable that was linked to a Wiki in a FP7 project (SENSEI)

  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20111011/f6723a61/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SENSEI_WP5_D5.3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 88703 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20111011/f6723a61/attachment.pdf>