Dear Javier, I was in an all day meeting and I spotted this important email only now. Since effort allocation and check of partner task description is a duty of each partner I forwarded to the WP9 and 10 mailing list for their reply. I'll collect the replies and send to you as soon as possible, thanks for your patience, Andrea Il 26/03/2013 08:59, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: > > Dear all. > > Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract > from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and > modified if needed by each WPL. > > I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the > changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. *Please, each > WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today*. > > Please review: > > Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) > > Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) > > Description of each task. (word file) > > Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. > > BR > > Javier. > > *De:*JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 > *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *CC:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ > *Asunto:* Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW > dealing with PMs reallocation > > Hi all, > > A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my > response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification > of further delays on the side of the Commission. > > If you believe that I should have added something in my response or > you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. > > Cheers, > > -- 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) Coordinator > and 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 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > *Subject: *** > > > > Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs > reallocation > > *Date: *** > > > > Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 > > *From: *** > > > > Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es> <mailto:jhierro at tid.es> > > *To: *** > > > > <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> > > *CC: *** > > > > <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> > <mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, <subsidies at tid.es> > <mailto:subsidies at tid.es>, <mcp at tid.es> <mailto:mcp at tid.es>, > <jdps at tid.es> <mailto:jdps at tid.es>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" > <jhierro at tid.es> <mailto:jhierro at tid.es> > > Dear Arian, > > Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your > message below ... > > > On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu > <mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> wrote: > > Dear Juanjo, > > *The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, > and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. * > > I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here > the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird > pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered > by the grant agreement. > > > I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has > not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other > way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to > reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has > concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts > in the things they have decided to concentrate on). > > I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more > worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were > participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. > > One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE > is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but > with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there > is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear > role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to > the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, > imho, in achieveing good results. > > > Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and > academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry > reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes > increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry > is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the > industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad > on EU industry. > > > The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I > honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be > considered in a very first approach: > > * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been > transferred to an academia partner: > > o Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the > implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the > IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would > support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able > to commit to support this interface in their product for the > 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found > here an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an > ETSI M2M implementation already rather than to be able to > develop it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made > us feel more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an > Architecture which already considered support to the relevant > ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from > any industry partner in Europe so that's why. > o Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an > implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of > the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM > basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset > (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve > to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. > Second because they were committed to contribute their > implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering > the code of the Store as open source could be something that > would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are > many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is > open source so we expect this will call the attention of third > parties. > > * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not > correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement > FI-WARE GEs: > > o PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond > to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is > not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to > setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be > commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who > could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop > a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also > committed to implement it as open source and that is also > relevant to ensure sustainability. > o When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that > finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that > we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other > tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, > initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM > because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing > with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and > contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to > assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the > look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of > the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made > sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement > some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not > initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in > considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the > Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. > o Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found > that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not > enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. > > > This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more > elaborated response can be provided if needed. > > > Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt > tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without > any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) > cannot be correct. > > > We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion > as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are > still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand > that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major > changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, > so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an > amendment of the DoW. > > > Then, what is most important is *what happens with the contributions > from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB.* > > > Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any > relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who > was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the > ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation > of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... > > > > What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson > Composition Engine (ECE) > > What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson > IoT Gateway > > In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So > the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which > Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." > > Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? > > If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their > contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? > > > Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps > Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE > GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing > these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying > on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we > couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE > so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the > whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry > out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on > the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already > other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not > critical to find a replacement for the ECE. > > > Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE > "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called > "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. > > > The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the > IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially > replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by > NSN. > > > Specific questions: > > 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of > Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM > until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to > assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and _will be > involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!"_ > > > Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will > start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... > Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its > beginning, but in different WPs. > > > 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at > 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? > > > I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not > so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, > all of them are Thales ... > > > > Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the *Electronic-only > signature and transmission of Form C *(see attachment)? > > > Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo > > > > Best regards, > > Arian. > > PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early > response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the > ones in the grant agreementâEUR¦ > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM > > To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) > > Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es <mailto:subsidies at tid.es>; > Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez > > Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with > PMs reallocation > > Dear Arian, > > Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new > > amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending > > (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in > > our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding > > some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to > > handle withdrawal of several partners. > > All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC > > (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. > > We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end > > of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is > > aligned with an approved DoW. > > Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes > > already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in > > amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in > > the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of > > PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures > > (overall funding is kept the same). > > Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd > > reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the > > consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going > > to take over their responsibilities. > > We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the > > changes summarized here. > > We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your > > agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the > > DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the > > existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over > > the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep > > their investments they have been making so far. > > No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this > > proposed PMs reallocation. > > We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo Hierro > > ------------- > > 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) Coordinator > > and Chief Architect > > You can follow FI-WARE at: > > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu > > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 > <http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242> > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932> > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra polÃtica de envÃo 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 polÃtica de envÃo 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 > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpa/attachments/20130326/8f60a894/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy