Hi Juanjo, Sorry for my late answer today... First, thanks so far for answering to my mail and trying to provide some more insight for me/us based on your talks with the EC. > Please provide such a text proposal along today, otherwise I will formulate the question with my best understanding of what kind of answers SAP wishes to see. Please go ahead and send the questions. From my side I would like to understand why the extension is necessary esp. what is the intention of the EC and/or Reviewers insofar as what they expect to improve during the extension time w.r.t to concrete missing results or expected activities to be carried out. Please let me also explain our last week's "objection" that you address in your mail: our objection was meant in the "historic" context of the last week - to object against your plan to send the mail to Arian last week (after having proposed this 2 days before). The objection shall be seen restricted to that past time. We had answered your mail with request for partner opinions and expressed we would certainly due to missing information and some identified problems would not vote "pro-extension". To illustrate this, we additionally shared a list of problems / doubts with the WPL/WPA team. For example, Torsten stated also "That's why we insist in a more detailed plan then just moving deliverables a few months." which underlined this. Let me therefore clearly express that as of today we do not block a "fi-ware extension _per se_". I would be happy if we could take my statement for now and move on in the ongoing discussion. For instance, we now need more details/answers to questions like "why extension needed", "what do we need to carry out - partner-wise", etc. either answered by EC and also answered among ourselves. We have the position that we in FI-WARE need to achieve a consortium-wide opinion or agreement (e.g. like the doodle that you plan). For example, a pressing interesting topic for me is info about "can individual partners leave and how to handle this / how to sort this out?" which needs to be clarified now, at least for me, and you took this up in your mail likewise. My most dominant issue is still lack of EC-side information to all partners which we can use, e.g. in a written form or such to be able to analyze comprehend a possible standpoint. Up to now, EC did not express a clear (written) explanation of intentions and expectations to partners (only phone calls or other informal talks, I might have missed something indeed). So for me only now clouds are beginning to fade away a bit, e.g. with the info from your mail below. In this respect, I am looking forward to Arians answer to the request you are about to send to him soon. Having said this, I agree with you that a good next step is to execute the Doodle to assess the opinion of all partners to get a good starting point (I did this poll in the WP3 chapter already, inspired by one of your comments before, and I could share the results if needed, but not all partners have answered). That is why I here do not go and answer to other aspects in your answer and would like to wait until I get a better picture. Best wishes Markus From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Oktober 2013 07:55 To: Heller, Markus Cc: 'fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu'; 'fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu' Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-wpa] IMPORTANT: Extension of the project duration --> request for update Hi, I was writing an email on the matter, but I have found it is actually helpful to structure the message in response to your email, so here you are: On 28/10/13 14:31, Heller, Markus wrote: Dear Juanjo, Since we did not have the WPL/WPA call today, I would like to address the FI-WARE project extension topic here. If I am right, you wrote in one of your mails on this that you have intended to send a consortium statement message to EC at end of the last week. Can I please ask you for an update on the discussed FI-WARE Extension topic and how we plan to drive this forward? Since we didn't reach a consensus, I haven't sent anything yet to the EC of course. Additionally, I have the following questions on this topic: 1. Do we have an answer from EC /reviewers for the question who requested it (EC, reviewers, both) and what they think should be done/improved in the extension period? If I recall tight, there was an action item either in one of the PCC call / WPL&WPA call on this. I have made the request for a more detailed explanation about this request by the EC+reviewers during a conversation I had with Arian and Jesús Villasante this monday but I was planning to send a formal request before the end of today. It would be actually helpful if you provide a first version of the questions you would like to get answered so that I can secure that I formulate a complete set of questions. Otherwise, we may end up with an answer that may be satisfactory to me but not complete by SAP. Please provide such a text proposal along today, otherwise I will formulate the question with my best understanding of what kind of answers SAP wishes to see. During this conversation, the EC made it very clear to me that they WANT this extension. I also understood they believe this extension is required to be able to execute the readjustments they anticipate as a result of the assessment on GEs they have announced they will carry out in the month 30 review. As you may remember, the last review report announced that this GE assessment will be carried out in the month 30 review and reallocation of resources will be derived from it (as mentioned in the outcome review report ... "The result of this evaluation is that the prospects for future use of GE implementations will be assessed. It may lead to decisions to stop funding certain activities and allocate scarce funds to more promising areas for the remainder of the project"). Therefore, I understand from my conversation with Arian and Jesus that one of the reasons the EC require this extension is to be able to implement the necessary changes derived from these decisions. But better to get a formal answer. They even mentioned at that time that objection to the extension may be considered a matter of non-performance of the contract by the objecting partners (this I guess only if the extension becomes an actual request, rather than a recommendation, as a result of the month 30 review). BTW, during the conversation the EC also confirmed that the several inputs they will consider for driving the decisions on the assessments of the GEs would be: * individual exploitation plans of the owners of the GEis linked to a GE * expected usage by UC projects as captured on the FI-PPP cockpit on "FI-WARE GEis Planned Usage and General Information" * the own assessment mady by the reviewers * report made by Lutz Schubert * experience using the GEis during hackathons or by any other parties (e.g., usage by research projects planning to use FI-LAB) 2. As I have understood in my other mails, some other partners also sent a "rather not" message to you like we did (but most tied it to a statement like "if all others go for it we would maybe join in"). Do you have an current overview who prefers to either go for an extension or to not go for an extension - e.g. on the WPL/WPA mailing list? What I have planned to do is a poll among the partners, so that we have a clear picture of who really objects (under any formula), who can live with it but provided some restrictions apply, who can go for it and actually prefer to go for it, etc. 3. Time Frame: Do we (still) talk about a possible extension of 4 months - or has something changed in the meantime w.r.t. extension time frame? I once got the rumor that the EC wanted to get the project extended for a longer period, but this possibility was not mentioned during the conversation with the EC this monday. It seems like an extension of 4 months would work for them. My personal feeling is that if we post-pone acceptance of an extension, this extension will be forced as a result of the month 30 review and then the request may be for a longer period ... so better not to allow this to happen and go for negotiating an extension of 4 months ... but just my personal feeling. 4. Budget for extension: Would the extension be somewhat budget-neutral or would the extension come with any additional funding? Of course, I guess the extension would be budget-neutral, right? This question maybe has been already addressed during my vacation... The extension would not come with any additional funding. Torsten shared our current SAP opinion on a possible extension below and I would also be interested in your opinion on his reply to you given below, for example, how such a mixed approach (some partners stay vs. some partners leave) can be organized with a detail plan to make sure the split-up really works out well to avoid last mile damage to the project due to failing handovers or necessary result reductions etc... I can generally understand some of the points you made, but frankly speaking I cannot share why a single partner can block other partners for going to such an extension if those other partners can live with it or wish to. I believe it should be feasible, as I mentioned in my reply to Torsten, to plan things so that some partners can leave the project if they cannot live with the extension (which is something I can understand) so the software of the GEis they own gets frozen and, in addition, we plan how others can take over any coordination activity the may be doing. Why objecting to that and create a big issue to the project ? This is honestly something I cannot understand. Now, I add, based on my feelings from my conversation with Jesus an Arian, that going this direction can be worse even for the objecting partner ... but just my personal feelings again. If you agree, we can try to go on with e-mail during the week to bring the topic forward since there is no other coordination call currently scheduled this week if I see right. I agree. Let's try to make progress on the discussion off-line so we progress before the next coordination call next Monday, November 4th. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best wishes Markus From: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Leidig, Torsten Sent: Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2013 11:33 To: Juanjo Hierro Cc: Theilmann, Wolfgang; '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>'; Nochta, Zoltan Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-wpa] IMPORTANT: Extension of the project duration Dear Juanjo, We still don't understand why the extension is necessary esp. what's the intention of the EC/Reviewers, what do they expect to improve during the extension time. Your proposal to let SAP close its activities and deliverables following the original plan does not really work out well. There are many dependencies we have to sort out to let us work independently. Also we would properly not longer serve as a WPL/WPA for WP3. That's why we insist in a more detailed plan then just moving deliverables a few months. Regards, Torsten Dr. Torsten Leidig SAP Research Center CEC Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Prießnitz-Str. 1 76131 Karlsruhe T +49 6227 7 52535 F +49 6227 78 29753 E torsten.leidig at sap.com<mailto:torsten.leidig at sap.com> http://www.sap.com<http://www.sap.com/> Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen ________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:09 AM To: Leidig, Torsten Cc: '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>'; Nochta, Zoltan; Theilmann, Wolfgang Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpa] IMPORTANT: Extension of the project duration Dear Torsten, I believe that nothing prevents that a given partner, or even a whole chapter, ends its work and submit their deliverables as defined in the original DoW. That would mean submitting in advance, which would not be that much an issue ... In other words, I don't have an issue if SAP closes its activities and deliverables following the original plan, while other chapter/partners keep working and deliver after closing release 3.3, planned by end of April (check [1]) ... would that work with you ? On the other hand ... Is this the sole position of SAP in WP3, or extension is an issue also for the rest of partners in the WP ? ... and BTW, for many of the deliverables that have to do with software release, specifications, software documentation (i.e., the more heavy ones) delivery dates are month 33, which means end of January 2014 ... so there are no 6 months from now but really 3 months ! Best regards, -- Juanjo [1] - http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Releases_and_Sprints_numbering,_with_mapping_to_calendar_dates On 23/10/13 14:23, Leidig, Torsten wrote: Dear Juanjo, This is to inform you that SAP objects to the suggested extension of the FI-WARE project for a number of reasons: * We expect to finalize all our WP deliverables until end of April. * We also expect to deliver all contributions to general deliverables. * SAP internal resource, planning, and contractual constraints will not allow us to do substantial work after the original project end. Therefore an extension is counter productive. * We are seriously concerned that an extension will further delay the project. We don't understand why deliverables cannot be finalized and why. Just moving the deadlines is not enough to do a proper re-planning. We cannot estimate, which workload is imposed on us during this extension period. Please also be aware that 2 month of the extension fall into summer period, where usually not much happens. * The EC did not express a clear explanation, why they suggest an extension. The comments in the review report are very vague. We also don't understand why so many deliverables have to be moved 4 months. Is this really necessary? The approach should be to focus and get most of the deliverables ready at the original project end (We still have 6 month to work on it!) and leave only a very small number of deliverables for a possible extension. Also not all WP and partners might be necessary during this extension. Best regards, Torsten Leidig Dr. Torsten Leidig Research Expert Human Computer Interaction TIP PA&TS HCI Research SAP Research Center CEC Karlsruhe SAP AG Vincenz-Prießnitz-Str. 1 76131 Karlsruhe T +49 6227 7-52535 F +49 6227 78 29753 E torsten.leidig at sap.com<mailto:torsten.leidig at sap.com> http://www.sap.com Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Walldorf, Germany Vorstand/SAP Executive Board: Henning Kagermann (Sprecher/CEO), Shai Agassi, Léo Apotheker, Werner Brandt, Claus Heinrich, Gerhard Oswald, Peter Zencke Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairperson of the SAP Supervisory Board: Hasso Plattner Registergericht/Commercial Register Mannheim No HRB 350269 Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. ________________________________ 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/20131030/15203307/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy