Hi all, SAP and us have a little bit discussion about the agenda and it came clear that a number of things should be clarified regarding the proposed agenda. Besides, we had time to discuss a couple of ideas that it's worth to put on the table and confirm it's ok for everyone, so we make sure that we are all on the same page. First of all, the proposed agenda we have shared with the EC and reviewers didn't elaborate on the ordering we should follow regarding presentation of the checkpoints. Therefore we can change the ordering a bit if we find is necessary. The fact that we start with the live demo is a true demonstration that this was originally intended. Maybe the fact that I had put all the checkpoints in the shared spreadsheet and put them in the same position as their numbers was a bit misleading. The main goal of that spreadsheet was to share information about duration of each presentation and also designate caretakers as well as share ideas/comments regarding the presentation linked to each point. Besides this, SAP and us agreed that it would be nice to introduce some key messages but do it leveraging on what we have achieved or planned regarding checkpoints. To some extend, checkpoints are the "facts" that reviewers want to see (as compared to vague promises or intentions) so we should try to combine these facts in support of some key messages we want to deliver. Following that approach, we believe that the following script would look nice. The idea would be to deal with each subset of checkpoints and close the presentation of those subset with some closing statement we may present in some slide: * checkpoints 9 (live demo), checkpoint 1 ==> FI-WARE is useful * checkpoints 2, 5 ==> FI-WARE is already working (testbed) and has started to be used * checkpoints 6-7-8 ==> FI-WARE will be able to attract the wider community of developers (because we have a plan for it) * checkpoint 11 ==> FI-WARE is sustainable * checkpoint 3-4 ==> FI-WARE is on track (again) We would end up with a single slide with all the messages. We may need to move the item on "Summary of actions performed for deliverables resubmission" right after revision of the checkpoints. We may also go for making it a bit shorter (15 mins) so that we try to have more time for presentations of the different chapters. Of course, your feedback is welcome. We can discuss it off-line and close the discussion during our next joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall on Monday, 11:00am. Best regards, -- juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es> email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto: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 On 14/11/12 08:35, Juanjo Hierro wrote: Dear Uwe, My comments between lines: On 13/11/12 21:32, Riss, Uwe wrote: Hello, Following our Conf Call on Monday we looked at the review agenda again and decided to make the following remarks and suggestions: 1. The Presentation of Checkpoints is much too long. The current planning would mean that we concentrate for 3 hours on what went wrong in the past. From a psychological point of view this does not seem to be a good strategy even though we explain what we have changed. The issues that we treat in the planned Checkpoint session possess a value of their own and we should present them in the way. Therefore our suggestion would be to shortly go through the Checkpoints, based on a table that we present, report on the status and the point to that part of the review where we demonstrate how we have handled them. I believe this would be a rather wrong decision and I would strongly object to that. Covering the checkpoints doesn't mean we will concentrate on "what went wrong in the past". The right interpretation is "we are going to concentrate 3 hours demonstrating you that we actually care about your concerns, explaining how we have dealt with them". I believe that one of the problems we have to solve is that the reviewers have the impression that "this guys don't care about our comments, they just simply come here and tell what they have done no matter what we think they should do". Going in the direction of reducing this to save some time to elaborate on the Chapters, btw, would emphasize precisely that impression (we come here to tell you what we are doing, like it or not). It would almost clone the agenda of the previous review, and that would not be the best choice. We may reduce from other sides and give a little bit more to Chapters' presentations (I'll come to this later in response to point 3) Furthermore, many of the checkpoints were NOT about wrong things in the past. Some of them were indeed about points that couldn't be covered in the 1st year review (e.g., the Testbed is not available): checkpoints 2, 5, 7, 8 or 9 are good examples of that. So your proposal is based on a wrong analysis, sorry. Talking about timing, I rather believe we need the allocated time to present a credible response to checkpoints 1-8. Do you think that spending 10+20 mins elaborating on "Public availability of a matrix of Use Cases using the GEs" and "Testbed in operation, feedback from UC projects on using the Testbed, and potential integration with FIRE infrastructures." is too long ? By no means and there are A LOT of positive things we may talk about here, without anything that we have made particularly wrong in the past (BTW, here it is where we would elaborate on the FI-WARE Catalogue and how it has been used to communicate with UC projects and report on what is available on the Testbed). We may also bring positive messages regarding checkpoint 6 and this didn't have anything to do with things made wrong in the past. Checkpoint 11 may take less time, but I was assuming that most problably checkpoints 1-8 will go longer than the initially 90 minutes planned so I was managing some kind of cushion. 2. The time that we save this way should be used for other purposes. One should be to point at our efforts in improving the collaboration with the Use Case projects. We haven't found this topic in the agenda explicitly even though aspects of this topic appear in the checkpoint Presentation. These points should be bundled and enhanced by reports on our other collaboration activities in this respect and presented as a separate point of the agenda. Collaboration with the Use Case projects, despite being highlighted in the Summary of Status and somehow in several of the checkpoints, will have a dedicated slot during the presentation on "Communication, Collaboration and Dissemination" the second day (I would presume at least 20 mins). BTW, a lot of issues and WRONG things we have done in that respect (our performance with the tracker and responses to UC projects is rather poor). So, following your argument, nothing with respect to which we should spend too much time. I would highlight the "highs" during the first day, creating the necessary good momentum (checkpoints 2, 5 and 7 should allow us to do that) while how we are improving during the presentation the second day. 3. Finally we would prefer to spend more time on the individual chapters. 10 minutes is very brief and we fear that we cannot present our chapter results in the limited timeframe. We see the problem that each extension of the timeslot means a sevenfold extension but nevertheless some extension would actually be necessary. One thing we can do is reduce the presentation on "Summary of actions performed for deliverables resubmission", where we may reduce up to keep it 15 mins. And another 15 mins of the wrap-up. Therefore allocate aprox the 105 mins to presentations of Technical Chapters which would mean 15 mins for chapter. Going for more time on each chatper would simply go in the same direction of previous reviews. I feel like it would be the wrong direction. Best regards, -- Juanjo Every feedback to these suggestions is welcome, please don't hesitate to give it. Best regards, Uwe Dr. Uwe Riss Senior Researcher, New Assets & Bussiness Model Innovation | SAP Research Karlsruhe SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Str. 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-70212 | F +49 6227 78-26158 | M +49 151 16810936 | mailto: uwe.riss at sap.com<mailto:uwe.riss at sap.com> www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/> Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschaeftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtuemlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdruecklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ 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<mailto:Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu> http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl ________________________________ 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/20121115/acede303/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy