Dear Javier,
Sorry but yesterday I was away and could only see your email today. So will try to get it answered asap and by EOB today at the latest. But please consider it is not easy to react with such “short” deadline.
Best Regards,
Pascal
De : fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ
Envoyé : mardi 26 mars 2013 08:59
À : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu
Cc : subsidies at tid.es
Objet : Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation
Importance : Haute
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<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto: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:
* 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.
* 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:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 agreement…
-----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
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/20130327/07ddc0e1/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy