Dear Juanjo, I try to give you my thoughts. I read all the report very carefully and my feeling is that it is better to avoid any formal reply and try to address as much as possible all their remarks. I personally think that if all the reviewers had this impression we have to stay with this without starting endless battle that in the end we will lost and would cost much more than now. Concerning the budget cut, I agree with you that it is not clear what's the policy they adopted as there is no clear statements on how much effort was allocated to each deliverable. Probably a request of clarification rather than complaining formal letter is more than welcome. However, I strongly believe that problems are others and much more serious than this ... at least for the Open Specifications we have the information and data (I guess), it is just a matter of reorganization and better explanation. :-) Concerning the conference call, I would suggest an "ad-hoc" conference call (if not a f2f) to discuss everything in details and plan a very solid and realistic action plan to recover. Regards, M. P.S. Out of the scope of this mail: I am involving few people in the company (mostly senior developers) to look at fi-ware and try to understand if they are able to understnad from the available information what it is, what can they do with its results and so on. I expect some feedbacks in the coming days. However, I was noticing something very interesting. Is it normal that a person looking at our web site www.fi-ware.eu, in the TAG session does not find any single tag regarding software, ICT, Future Internet, platform, etc. ? The key Tag is Events. I know this is now out of the scope of this mail and probably trivial but we should try to put ourselves in the shoes of people not involved in FI-WARE nor in the PPP and try to imagine what they can understand reading at our outcomes. The other important point is: what's our main access point: the web site or the FF instance? I honestly do not know yet. :-( Il 30/08/2012 09:08, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto: > Hi all, > > Please find enclosed the final review report from the EC and our > team of reviewers. > > The review report is negative, as expected. However, there are > some more negative surprises like the fact that they have rejected 50% > of the costs linked to Open Specification deliverables (despite > nowhere in the DoW it is specified how much effort would correspond to > development of Open Specifications in the DoW). > > In my honest opinion, the statements regarding evaluation of the > Open Specifications deliverable are highly arguable. Just as an > example, note that it is stated that "The deliverable does not provide > sufficient basis for practical implementation by software developers, > which is its main purpose" regarding all Chapters. I don't know what > your opinion is but I believe this is fundamentally wrong. > > I will elaborate on a mail following this one about the statements > made in the review regarding Open Specifications and why I believe > many of them are fundamentally wrong. Whether we should produce a > formal answer or not is unclear to us (TID) so we would like to hear > your personal opinion. Certainly answering it will distract us from > our main focus now. But on the other hand, resubmission of Open > Specifications will depend very much on what we accept as valid > comment from reviewers. Maybe the best option is to answer formally > but do it later, given the fact that they request to resubmit Open > Specifications by end month 18, i.e., end of October. Therefore, we > would focus now in stabilizing the FI-WARE Testbed, ensuring that a > proper collaboration with UC projects is in place and working well, > and finalizing resubmission/submission of deliverables linked to > Architecture, Technical Roadmap and 3rd Party Innovation Enablement. > Again, we would like to hear your opinion. > > Definitively this is something we should discuss in our next > follow-up confcall. > > Don't hesitate to share this with your teams. It should be used to > encourage people to pay attention to meeting milestones and ensure > that contributions come with the required quality. Also to explain why > we had to put in place hard measures targeted to ensure that we were > going to deliver. We have made a big effort to have the FI-WARE up > and running without impacting UC projects, so I feel positive that the > overall evaluation of the project will improve soon. But we cannot > relax and have to work hard together to ensure that the FI-WARE First > Release becomes a success in the upcoming months. > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo > > ------------- > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital > website:www.tid.es > email:jhierro at tid.es > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect > > You can follow FI-WARE at: > website:http://www.fi-ware.eu > facebook:http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 > twitter:http://twitter.com/FIware > linkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:51:12 +0000 > From: <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> > To: <jimenez at tid.es> > CC: <jhierro at tid.es>, <Renaud.DiFrancesco at eu.sony.com>, > <msli at icfocus.co.uk>, <irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com>, > <bel.piet1 at gmail.com>, <dgr at whitestein.com>, > <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, <Jesus.Villasante at ec.europa.eu>, > <Peter.Fatelnig at ec.europa.eu> > > > > Dear Jose, > > Please find enclosed the outcome of the third FI-WARE review and the > review meeting that took place on 21-22 June 2012 in Brussels. No > paper version will follow. > > Please distribute the review report to the partners in the consortium. > > Please acknowledge the receipt of this e-mail. > > Best regards, > > Arian Zwegers > > Scientific Officer > > European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology > > E3 Net Innovation > > Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Office 3/095, B - 1160 Brussels, Belgium > > Tel: +32-2-2984424, Fax: +32-2-2962178 > > Web site: > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/index_en.htm > > Assistant: > > Vanessa Vanhumbeeck, Tel: +32-2-2964939, Email: > Vanessa.Vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu > > Postal mail address: > > European Commission, Office BU25 03/095, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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-wpl mailing list > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20120830/d96184bc/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: matteo_melideo.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 354 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20120830/d96184bc/attachment.vcf>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy