Dear colleagues,
let me share my internal notes as well here (WPL/WPA ONLY!!)- Please do not distribute this to the teams- but cross-check them with your notes and let us discuss this internally in this "small" round. Happy to receive (as well in private) errors or "your" notes...
The comments in italic are the either "our" questions or some comments I added after the meeting to clarify this.
The text was written chronologically along the discussion and it was in times quite "fast", therefore hard to catch everything - I might have missed a lot, so don't count on it :)
Happy holiday season and all the best for the new year,
/Thorsten
- "Since it is getting late, let get do this fast"
- Positive points
o Campus party was a good event
o Lot of publicity and press most people liked it - one reviewer was there
o Arian was disappointed that he was the only one which slept in the tent ":)"
o Campus party ... more will come
§ Hackers very good, young guys, the geeks
o Statements about "use of the results" during this review
§ A lot more convincing this time
§ Lot of them in the meeting very good
o Branding story was a positive development - as well get away from FP7 project branding towards your commercial products
§ Storyline with filab, cataloge, markteplace for app developer (campuserous platform) - nice and more convincing
o Fi-lab is a viable mechanism
§ Very clear
§ Essential to the overall story
o There is a certain momentum to the project - smart city expo, cebit
o ... But as well certain danger: might get too comfortable ... even complacenty and thinking: "things are going well as it is"
§ Always risk towards the project end - we (the EC) have to shake things up! (more later)
o Nice to see pick-up of the technology - as we said: we like to have this available publicly
§ More evidence is necessary ... how do they use it
§ But: you need to request for feedback from them and follow this up
- Not so positive points
o A lot of these points are related to the recommendations later, let's keep this part short
o Fi-lab is available ... people can play around ... it's an playground environment... good start, but the these people would like to use it _commercially_
o Somebody need to enable this and communicate that they will do this
o The process to go from playground to commercialization... is not clear yet
§ We heart about commercial instances but currently they are not committed - it's still on exploitation plan level but NOT there yet there - not even announced
o "People" need to know how to make the move from fi-lab to commercial instances
o Use of fi-lab ... is used from geeks, which positively describe before - but will _they_ commercialize applications? They are happy to participate in contests, prices, but do/would they commercialize things?
o How about "serious SMEs"? What and how can they use FI-WARE in commercial context apart from the FI-lab?
§ (Arian thinks that SME are more viable here, but still they need to have commercialization options and need to be able to calculate with possible options)
- Let's go straight to recommendations
o The focus for the last 8 month - assuming extension is approved should be always:
§ Making things ready for phase 3
o There was a mail send to the coordinator the recommendations will mainly follow this email
1. Make it ready to let others use it
2. Packaging of GE ...
3. Further feature development with lower priority is necessary
§ ... Last software release for M33, but then development should really STOP - focus needs to be on the PACKAGING
§ End of development activities will be M33
o Use external and internal validation (lutz has done that)
§ But needs to be improved internally: e.g. just ask your colleagues ... ask colleagues to install your GEs and write a review about this
§ Or use feedback provided by externals
o XIFI and use case projects will be using you and provide feedback
§ Feedback _should_ come in with different sources - EC will ensure this
§ But: there needs to be a process in place for the feedback channels in FI-WARE
§ Receive feedback and deal with it
o E.g. Feedback from hackathons, Santander...
§ FI-WARE should really get to the bottom: "Who are these people, what do they do?" - how do you follow-up with that? - announcing another contest? (it can't be only on yet-another contest)
§ These people are probably relevant for your ecosystem...
o More important than events is to target the _communities_ ... seems you are not targeting the communities properly
§ Now it seems to be that you only have "one-off" events
o Now coming to the "list of GE unter discussion"
§ We ask you to stop all GEs on this list - except a small grey area around a few - e.g. the ones being open source and the onces that have a "D" in the testbed usages matrix will be ok
§ Juanjo: what about the ones that lately committed to Open Source?
· Arian: "Too little too late" ( the open source announcements... )
§ All developments should be ready by now... we expect still that they are delivered with M33 in their current status
§ MH: What about the second group where the EC have open questions?
· Second group was different - for some of them it was just status unclear
· The second group questions need to addressed and presented to the EC - they are on the watch list, decision on how to cope with them follows the presented answers.
· Like to get answers either in the prepared presentations for the review or via email and direct interaction
o "Optional extension"
§ E.g. the question is: what does it mean if it is an optional extension .. But what does it really mean?
§ Let's put it like this: if this is an implementation of an specification, then there needs to be a reference implementation and all that.
o SAP exploitation plan is quite good - would not put you on the list.
o WP9
§ We had the discussion - we think that most of the tools are already sufficient and mature
§ There is no sense in development
§ Exception might be catalog and elearning platform (depending if the efforts are related to content improvements or functional improvements of the platforms)
§ Is it content providing or development of the platform - let talk about that separately
- Standards contribution
o Comments done via the meeting
o NET IC and IOT broker - assure alignment with ONF (ONA?) .. 1m and 2m standards ...
§ (Ths: a lot of details, couldn't follow)
o Think about the feedback... you should put your plans into the deliverable and submit it to ONF...
- Lot of recommendation from last report will be kept
o _Reference_ implementations not just _implementation_
o Addressing communities - all recommendations still apply
o ... and so on
- Catalog development changes - revamping (layout, tools integration) - clearly: should be done
o Not judge the amount of effort to be spend there
- Juanjo: how will the "stop" of GEs for the list be implemented - what happens to person month until this decision has been made?
o The decision applies as of December 31.12 and implemented 01.Jan
o Costs won't be assessable ... we are still assuming that they are part of those deliverables...
o They (the GEs) have to be delivered by the end of the normal period -
- Juanjo: Maybe there will be no PMs rejected?
o Arian: let's see
- Juanjo: How will we "Stop working" on the GEs?
o Finalize the documentation ... and e.g. still do part of the packaging simply: put the GEs in best state
o But PM that were assigned to development, clearly move to the packaging
- Juanjo: For some of the GE it just does not make sense to stop them ...
o Packaging v3 ... needs to be the top priority
o Juanjo: Development stop will not be accepted for all of them.
- For WP9 you can safely assume: what you presented as delayed plan, is OK - all you said is accepted
- Juanjo: Platform products are living products. You have to evolve them. Your project is coming to an end ....
- The products should be in a state, where they could be carried over to another project ...
- Juanjo: What kind of development do you consider crucial?
o Its in the technical roadmap.... Cloud chapter... we are deling with management of networking characteristics of the infrastructure we setup..
o Network ressources, how to define them in tiers ... the aspects around federation... private set of servers.
- Pascal: no development is OK - this I can understand for android flow monitoring .. but ... The other ones have committed features and the ones were demanded by the UC projects!
o Lutz: The collaboration with the UC projects ... not seems too actice, does it? ... does not seem that they really depend too much on FI-WARE...
- Arian: What we would NOT like to see: introduce something completely new
o Features that are on the roadmap - we have signed this off ... everything should be OK
o But not introducing new stuff .. concentrate and to ensure that nothing comes up out of nowhere
- The GEs we stop development with the ... what happen with the PM that have been consume?
o Stop development .. .wrap it up ... deliverable finishing
- For the white list ... no changes
- Thierry: The blacklist do we stop by 3.3 or 3.2?
o Stop the black-list with 3.2 (end of December): update the technical roadmap and remove the features
o This does not apply to list two of GEs
o Blacklisted GEs: Either you develop them further anyway with own funding or with the next funded project
- If you develop stuff outside of the specification, then it shouldn't be on the funding
- IDM GEs of UPM are OK (and are not part of the blacklisted GEs) - the other IDM GEs are part of the list
- Arian: I expect things to be on the cockpit EARLIER
o Basically the "cockpit" should hold all developments by all partners
o Time when it will be on the catalogue should be set in the cockpit
§ This time can be in the future...
o Thierry: Then this is not the same cockpit...
- Juanjo: what about amendment 6 and the holiday season?
o Won't have time to sign it in the existing complexity: Strip the amendment to cover the startup weekend only
o Additional beneficiaries should be added and do the content part afterwards
o Add only the partners with some money and some efforts...
o Juanjo: In almost one hour you can review it ... they need to have some evidence... they started work.
o If they need something Your inclusion will be accepted, some when: then YES
o Juanjo: please provide this in writingS
o Arian: will write an email
From: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2013 17:07
To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu
Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-wpl] IMPORTANT: Notes from early feedback provided by PO and reviewers after the month 30 review
Hi all,
Apologies for not sending this email earlier but I haven't had time due to some personal issues I have had to deal with when I arrived from my trip back to Madrid this morning.
These are my notes from the early feedback provided by PO and reviewers after the month 30 review meeting this morning.
Please read it carefully because there are quite relevant recommendations provided by the reviewers.
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
===
As with previous reviews, Arian structured the early feedback in three major parts:
* Positive points
* Not so positive points
* Recommendations
1. Positive points:
Campus Party was a good event. Gave good press and publicity.
Hackthons were good, also in Santander. It shows it is a good way to involve the geeks/developers and raise awareness among them.
Statements about vision and exploitation strategy start to become credible.
Branding story (FI-WARE, FI-Ops, FI-Lab) was positive. Also the product vs project-oriented approach are good developments.
Storyline about FI-Lab supported by the other tools (Catalogue, eLearning, Campusero) is starting to be solid.
Certain momentum behind the project. The risk is to become relaxed.
The list about other EU FP7 projects picking GEis was nice to have. Need to find a process to structure how they are involved (e.g., to gather their feedback in a structured manner).
2. Not so positive points:
Not sufficient evidence about FI-WARE commercial instances. Telefónica's instance has been announced in meetings and the review but there is no public announcement.
FI-Lab is being used by Geeks, that's true but ... are they the ones who will develop commercial applications? Will "serious" SMEs play with FI-Lab as the geeks have done ?
3. Recommendations:
Focus should be on making things ready for phase 3. This includes packaging of FI-WARE GEis (means for automatic deployment, standalone or packaged with other related GEis, good quality documentation). This doesn't prevent to evolve GEis.
Also focus should be on internal and external validation (UC projects, third parties). Run peer-reviews regarding GEis installation, etc among the partners as an internal validation. Process should be put in place to deal with feedback/validation and resources have to be devoted to follow-up the process.
It is important to target the events (go the events) but you have target the community behind the events.
Regarding the GEis in the first group under discussion during the review (see mail from Arian previous to the review to identify which GEis are referred as part of this first group): reviewers recommend that the development of those GEi is stopped with the closing of release 3.2 (planned for end of December). January would be then devoted to close the deliverables linked to release 3.2 (open specifications, GEi software, accompanying documentation, unit testing plan) and deliver them by end of January (month 33) as planned in the original DoW. No further work on the GEis would then be carried out (and therefore, costs accepted).
Question was raised by us about those GEis for which we have announced that an open source version would be available by the end of the project. Arian replied that such statement has arrived too late.
(note 1 after the meeting: regarding this point, I have proposed Arian that work keeps going regarding GEis for which it has been announced that an open source version would be available, at least with respect to packaging and cleaning of the software to make it available as open source. I have also recommended that features in the roadmap are also tackled for some of the IoT GEis (IoT Broker GEi by NEC, Backend Device Management GEi by Telefonica and Protocal Adapter - EPCGE by Orange) because plans to bring them as open source where known or under discussion enough in advance to the review.
(note 2 after the meeting: I have found that, with the exception of GEis referred in note 1, most of the GEis affected are owned by partners who have declared that they didn't object to extend the project, provided that they can finish their contributions to deliverables as originally planned so no significant contributions are expected from them after month 36 other than the support described in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. Therefore, this decision should not mean a major issue I guess).
Regarding tools under WP9: most of the tool are sufficiently mature so it doesn't make sense to continue their development and it is recommended to stop their development. This with the exception of the eLearning platform and the Catalogue platform.
Standards contribution: more concrete plans about contribution should be provided regarding OMF and the active presence in some standardisation bodies.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
RE: GEs to discuss in the review meeting
Date:
Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:33:44 +0000
From:
<Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
To:
<mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es>
CC:
<jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>, <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu><mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>
Dear Miguel,
As requested, please find a list below.
The question for the first group is whether it is worthwhile to continue funding development of:
- Data Chapter
- Compressed Domain Video Analysis, Codoan / Siemens
- Metadata Preprocessing, MetadataProcessor / Siemens
- Media-enhanced Query Broker, QueryBroker / Siemens
- Apps Chapter
- (Service Composition, Ericsson Composition Editor (ECE) / Ericsson)
- Service Mashup, Mashup Factory / DT
- Mediator, Mediator_TI / Telecom Italia
- IoT Chapter
- (Backend) Configuration Management, IoT Discovery - UNIS
- (Backend) IoT Broker, IoT Broker - NEC
- (Backend) Device Management, IDAS DCA - TID
- (Gateway) Protocol Adapter, ZPA / Telecom Italia / EPCGE / Orange
- Security Chapter
- Security Monitoring / Android Vulnerability Assessment, Ovaldroid / Inria
- Identity Management, GCP / DT
- Identity Management, One-IDM / NSN
- Identity Management, DigitalSelf / NSN
- Malware Detection Service (Opt), Morphus / Inria
- I2ND Chapter
- Cloud Proxy
- (I2ND) Network Information and Control (NetIC-VNP), Altoclient/ALU-D
- (I2ND) Network Information and Control (NetIC-OFNIC), VNP/NSN
- (I2ND) Network Information and Control (NetIC-altoclient), VNEIC/ALU-I
- (I2ND) Service Connectivity Capability and Control (S3C), S3C / DT
- Tools
- Trace Analyzer, IBM Israel
Then there are specific questions for the second group:
- Cloud Chapter
- Why having a DCRM by IBM and one by Intel? Differences?
- Object Storage GEi by IBM:?? Status?
- Edgelets Manager by Thales: not in the Catalogue?
- Data Chapter
- UDA - unstructured data analysis by ATOS?? Status?
- Apps Chapter
- Relation Mediator_TI by Telecom Italia and SETHA2 by Thales?
- IoT Chapter
- (Gateway) Device Management, Gateway Device Management / Franhoufer: not in the Catalogue?
- Test and evaluation server environment for NGSI by SAP?? Status?
- Template Handler by SAP?? Status?
- Security Chapter
- KeyRock by UPM?? Status?
- Access Proxy by UPM?? Status?
- MiWi Chapter
- Where are Advanced Middleware, 2D-UI, 3D-UI, Synchronization, Cloud Rendering, Display as a Service, GIS Data Provider, POI Data Provider, 2D-3D-Capture, Augmented Reality, Real-Virtual Interaction, Virtual Character, Interface Designer? Status?
Best regards,
Arian
-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:09 PM
To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT)
Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA
Subject: GEs to discuss in the review meeting
Dear Arian,
As you can easily gather, we are focused on the review now and there is
an important item we would like to prepare properly. Although we
understand that all GEs could be subject to discussion, we would like to
know as much as we can in advance. What GEs you have in mind to discuss
in particular? This would greatly help us to concentrate efforts and
provide a more accurate reply to your questions
This is particularly relevant in the case of the partners who are not
directly represented at the review meeting (you can infer this from the
attendee list). If there are questions for them, it would seriously
help to make the meeting more productive (or who knows if this could
even motivate some extra partners to join the review, given the case)
Best regards
Miguel
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco
_/ _/ _/ _/ Telefónica Distrito Telefónica
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigación y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9
_/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicación S/N
_/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain)
Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77
e-mail: mcp at tid.es<mailto:mcp at tid.es>
Follow FI-WARE on the net
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
________________________________
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/20131220/a90a2e87/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00001.txt
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20131220/a90a2e87/attachment.txt>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy