Dear Juanjo, that just say that I agree with your impressions as we already had time to share them ... I agree also with the actions you proposed especially for collecting information from the UC projects. cheers, Davide On 24/05/2012 16:27, Juanjo Hierro wrote: > Hi all, > > These are my first thoughts and proposed action points based on > experience during this educational sessions week, as an input to our > confcall tomorrow. > > First my impressions: > > * UC projects exhibit different level of progress. Regarding > Architecture Design of their solutions, some of them are still in > a very high-level. > * There are some cases where it is clear that the FI-WARE GEs nicely > fit in the proposed Architecture. This was rather clear in > InstantMobility and Oustmart (though the described architecture > was rather high-level). Also in Finseny to some extend > * The educational session have been useful to improve the > understanding by attendees from UC projects. Now they realize > that there is concrete stuff to analyze. > * There is a common agreement that the communication hasn't been > very much productive so far because there was no real stuff to > discuss about from neither of the two sides: > o FI-WARE hadn't produce the Architecture Description nor the > Open Specifications so therefore UC projects could not refine > very much their requests on features to be supported by > FI-WARE GEs > o UC projects hadn't produce Architecture Deliverables we could > inspect to point out areas where mapping between enablers > identified by UC projects and FI-WARE GEs have to be investigated > o now, we have this stuff in both side so that is the time to > push from both sides > * Some UC projects claimed that some sessions run parallel so they > couldn't attend both. Don't know whether we can find a solution > for this. > * More attendance on those sessions linked to FI-WARE GEs that > provide APIs that UC programmers have to use (Apps, IoT, > Data/Context and Security chapters) > > > Then, the actions I believe we have to carry out and propose: > > * Action-1: We have to officially ask all UC projects to share any > documentation they may have regarding their Architecture, and do > it inmediately. > * Action-2: We have to document and be able to monitor progress of > our communication, so using a tracker system is still the right > thing to do. However, we have to decide which one (or define a > new one). My proposal would be not to use the "FI-WARE > Theme/Epic/Feature Requests" but the "FI-WARE General Support" > tracker because it will more agile. Use of the tracker would be > bidirectional, so that we can open tickets on UC projects. > * Action-3: Each FI-WARE chapter should carefully study the > Architecture documentation by UC projects (available after > Action-1) to find the places where they believe there is an > opportunity of using FI-WARE GEs that should be explored, then > open the proper tickets on the UC projects to launch the > discussion. Note that discussion doesn't need then to be carried > out always off-line. Chapters should be ready to setup > confcalls, f2f meetings, whatever when necessary. > * Action-4: We will re-inforce the role of the dedicated team (in > this case, Carlos and Axel) that has to push Action-3 first, and > then follow-up progress and push communication afterwards. > Creation of a dashboard that allows us to monitor progress will be > key. > * Action-5: Communication between the UC projects and the FI-WARE > chapters may lead to the need to support new features in existing > FI-WARE GEs, define new FI-WARE GEs, etc. These case should lead > to creation of a ticket in the "FI-WARE Theme/Epic/Feature > Requests" backlog but, this time, the description of what is > required will be much more concrete and well understood from both > sides > > > Last but not least, some reflections regarding usage of the tracker: > > * I don't know if you agree, but the presentation by people from > InstantMobility was probably the best one from the UC projects, > among other things because you could see this guy was a rather > technical person. After the meeting, I had the opportunity to > talk with him and he told me that he though that a tracker was > what programmers like to use and only people who deals with > paperwork hate them. I tend to agree. It is not the tracker > what may fail but the people who is around who has to commit in > doing the work > * We need to document things for the reviews, like it or not. The > tracker will allow us to do this without problems. > * We need to be able to monitor progress in order to detect when > things are malfunctioning and put remedy actions. You need > something like a tracker to do that as well. > * Even most important than the previous: we should not forget that > FI-WARE will be extended so that may app developers will try to > use it after year 2. And there, on-line communication is not > going to scale (despite we may organize events like the > "Programmers' Days" and stuff like that). We have to formalize a > process and accompany them with toos, using phase 1 and first part > of Phase 2 of the FI-PPP to test them (taking advantage there will > be a limited number of projects then) > > > Your own feedback/comment is welcome. > > -- 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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/20120525/a1907a38/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy