FYI, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: A QUICK RESPONSE IS RATHER APPRECIATED: some questions regarding decisions on GEis Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:39:59 +0000 From: <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> To: <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>, <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu><mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> CC: <mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es> I'm waiting for the review report. I want to be in line with that report. From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:50 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); CNECT-ICT-285248 Cc: Miguel Carrillo; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Fwd: A QUICK RESPONSE IS RATHER APPRECIATED: some questions regarding decisions on GEis Dear Arian, Please note that this email was sent more than one month ago and we didn't receive any response. I only received your input for the second question in the direction that FI-WARE GEis for which any further activities were asked to be stopped (all closed source GEis with the exception of those from Thales) would not even have to deal with packaging. Consequently, we are assuming that what was stated there was right and we have setup plans accordingly. We will come with a proposal of packages of related GEis we can commit to deliver as part of FI-WARE Release 3 along this week. Some of them are already on the go, but we have been discussing a final list that will get consolidated this week. 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 FI-PPP Architecture Board chairman 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: A QUICK RESPONSE IS RATHER APPRECIATED: some questions regarding decisions on GEis Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:03:57 +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> <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> CC: Miguel Carrillo <mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" <jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es> Dear Arian, Sorry for the long mail, but it covers rather important points for which we need clear detailed elaboration. Some partners, and now some UC projects, have formulated a number of questions regarding decisions on GEis. I have provided my interpretation about what is the right answer but since I am not 100% sure it is actually the right one I would like to double check answers with you to confirm we are on the same page here. The formal project review report may arrive late and I wish to avoid that we have carried out activities that then we find that were not allowed because a different interpretation. On the other hand, there is a SB meeting this Tuesday where presumably many of the questions I raise in this email will be discussed. Therefore, it would be great if you can confirm whether we are on the same page here or not. First questions has to do with support to UC projects. Here we have to distinguish three cases. Please confirm whether you agree with the interpretation I make to each case: · Problem diagnosis and bug fixing. My understanding is that all GEi owners have to continue providing support to problem diagnosis and bug fixing. This not only until the project ends but also beyond, until end of the FI-PPP program, no matter if we are referring to GEis for which the owner is planning to cease activities at month 36 (please refer to my previous mail on extension of the duration of the project) or not. The FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement would be the agreement that backs this interpretation. No Service Level is granted by the Collaboration Agreement, so it would not be a surprise if, in practice, that maps into a higher/better support for those GEis linked to GEi owners who will continue in the Technology Foundation continuation project. We have to be realistic here. · Advising/training activities. UC projects may require some degree of support while using the GEis, including advise and training on local deployment and configuration. My understanding is that the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement doesn't cover this though. My vision here is that this can only be taken for granted until month 36 for those GEis where the GEi owner plans to cease activities at that month. After that, it will be more a mater of willingness in their case. On the other hand, advising/training can be warranted until end of the FI-WARE project for the rest of GEis (obviously up to certain extend) since the corresponding GEi owners have not objected to continue their activities. · Development of features required by the UC projects (either new or planned in the roadmap). I understand that this is only allowed for the GEis for which availability as open source was stated before end of November. Note that development of new features in those GEis will be planned only until month 36, matching release 3.3 of FI-WARE. The Technology Foundation continuation project is the project that is expected to deal with next releases of FI-WARE starting from release 4. However, no development of features is allowed for GEis for which availability as open source was not stated before end of November. UC projects will have to live with this fact and wait for the Technology Foundation project which, on the other hand, may not continue development of some of the GEis (particularly those that are not open source or for which it is determined that it is not worth continuing evolution and support). Second question has to do with "packaging". My understanding is that ALL GEis have to carry out "packaging" activities until end of release 3 (this means closing those activities by end of March and deliver the results by end of April, which is month 36). However, I may be wrong and packaging will indeed not be required for those GEis for which it has been stated that they won't be delivered as open source. Please confirm what is the correct interpretation. A third question related to the previous is ... what do we mean by "packaging" ? I believe that it would be worth coming with an accurate description of what "packaging" means so that we can forward to the partners clear instructions about what is expected. My interpretation is that this includes all what has to do with: · Improving "packaging" of each GEi standalone: o Making sure that the GEi can be easily be deployed on FI-Lab using FI-WARE Cloud deployment functionalities. This means setting up VM images with the GEi configured, Blueprint templates and, eventually, some deployment recipes. This applies for GEis for which it can be expected that FI-Lab users (developers) wish to have a dedicated instance running on the Cloud. It won't apply for other GEis for which dedicated instances do not make so much sense (e.g., GEis in the Cloud, I2ND or Security chapter, GEis linked to the Business Framework or WireCloud in the Apps chapter, GEis linked to the IoT gateway, the KIARA middleware GEi). o Making sure that we end with a high-quality documentation including not just developers' guides but administration guidelines easing deployment and configuration. · Developing the concept of "package of related GEis", which should mean: o Defining a dedicated entry in the FI-WARE Catalogue. o Developing the means for automated deployment on FI-Lab using Cloud deployment functionalities. This means setting up VM images with the GEis of the package properly configured, Blueprint templates coping with automated deployment of all GEis in the package and, eventually, some deployment recipes. Again, as with individual GEis, this applies for packages of GEis for which it can be expected that FI-Lab users (developers) wish to have a dedicated instance running on the Cloud. o Developing good guides enabling easing deployment and configuration of the packages. Note that definition of a "package of related GEis" is not always meaningful/useful. We will come with a list of packages that could make sense, but it won't be too long, actually. Again, please confirm so that we can properly communicate things to the FI-WARE partners. 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 FI-PPP Architecture Board chairman 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/20140224/43690ad2/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy