[Fiware-wpa] VERY URGENT: Observations on the result of the review of FI-WARE within one month of reception of the review report letter EXPIRES tomorrow

[Juanjo Hierro]

Hi all,

  I would need a explicit answer from every of you by EOB TODAY, so please don't forget to answer.

  According to Article II.23.8 of the grant agreement, we can make observations on the result of the review of our project within one month of reception of the review report letter (attached for your convenience)

  After the first and second peer-review of the FI-WARE Architecture and Open Specifications, not only me and TID but several of us have reached the conclusion that the reviewers didn't consider all the information that was already there on the Wik when they were evaluating the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications.   Actually, architecture description of the GEs seem to be covering part of what the reviewers had expected in a complete specification.   What we delivered as the deliverable didn't include this but was just what was needed to be provided, in addtion to what was already there as part of the FI-WARE Architecture Specifications, regarding specifications of APIs, languages, etc.

  In my honest opinion, we do not risk anything sending this observation because:

  *   we would explain that:
     *   we believe there were actually much more information regarding specifications of FI-WARE GEs than what the reviewers have evaluated (e.g., the part that was common to the FI-WARE Architecture documentation), and clarifying this should not be harmful but may help to explain we have actually worked hard in producing something complete
     *   we recognize that we failed in explaining this when the open specifications were delivered, so we are actually recognizing it was not their fault that they didn't find the information.
  *   we would also explain that we plan to resubmit the specifications so that the issue is solved and third parties do not fall also in the same problem (here, the kind of changes that were being proposed in a recent email by Uwe are in this direction)
  *   last but not least, we would tell them that we are carrying out peer-reviews of the contents anyway, to make sure that content-wise, the specifications are as much complete as possible.

  Additionally, we may add that we are going to submit to them a report on how the different check-points are being addressed.   This may help to reinforce we are taking their review report very much in consideration.

  The worst we can get is a 'not accepted".   I don't believe that, if we deliver the right words, we will get any problem.

  I will come with a specific text proposal along this morning, but prior to do this, I would like to start collecting your feedback.

  I have copied the whole list of FI-WARE WPLs/WPAs since some of them may not be part of the FI-WARE PCC mailing list and I believe it was fair to let them object if they believe there are good reasons for doing so.   I believe we don't need to involve the rest of the consortia since this a) would take too much time and b) IMHO is not that much a risk as stated above.

  Looking forward your quick answer

  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


________________________________

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/20120928/a97a8046/attachment.html>