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

[Matteo Melideo]

Dear Juanjo,
provided that from Engineering side Stefano's word is the last one, I 
have no objections on this.
However, keep into account that the exercise we did here in Engineering 
with the current FI-WARE results produced the same reviewers' outcomes. 
Then, I would strongly stress the following to points you raised:

  * to 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.
  * to 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)


My two cents.

BR

M.

Il 28/09/2012 08:53, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto:
> 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:
>       o 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
>       o 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
> 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/20120928/ea3a978e/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/20120928/ea3a978e/attachment.vcf>