Dear colleagues,
Please find a transcript (everything that I could write) in relation to the EC/reviewer statements down below.
I put less people in the "To"-line on purpose as the statements written are not as polished as the summary provided by Juanjo - please do use this text only internally & for your eyes only. Please do not distribute it. There is no filter applied and some missing statements are outline in brackets: <{{{{ }}}}>
If I got it correctly, the referenced "other side of the medal" was/is not always reflected in the not-so-positive points - but my transcript might be as well wrong here.
Please provide your insights and your opinion on the top X things we should target as follow-ups - or share similar notes as Juanjo requested.
DISCLAIMER: this is written in Bulletpoint-style with some corrections applied afterwards, so statements might be not reflected 1:1 and errors might have been introduced
"Verdict" - Transcript
- As usual review report - preliminary now
- Conclusion: technology is there - but go-to-market needs some improvements
- Comparable with M24 of a lot of projects - but different:
- This is NOT business as usual and more for fi-ppp and fi-ware concrete and relevant points will be outlined
Positive points
- You have very little time, so very incomplete understandable
- GE has improved and very clear and considerable improvements
- There has been new technology implemented and a whole good packages available at the moment
- Some GEs with potential
- I2ND improved a lot - some concern in the past
o Situation improved a lot in this WP
- IoT similar situation
o Concerns largely answered in the presentation
- In General: looking more out of the box
o State of the art deliverable will see what will be really new and what
- 3rd party involvement
o More and more considered, but <{{{{ MISSSING ..}}}}}>
- Attention for Smart Cities as focal point welcomed and right direction - but there is another side of the medal - see below
- Live demo was good - much more together - and more than previously
o Integration is not so much an issue as we thought it might be!
o More GEs
- Market analysis showed potential with some GEs - gives more confidents of the fi-ware results
- Market results
o Praised before and again - very good - excellent deliverable
- Release 2 of the Testbed everything seems to be on plan - therefore excellence - hope delivery to end of July runs smoothly
- OIL identified as central focus for upcoming period - leading up to campus party
- We see a real commitment to the campus party - and a pressure to deliver
- EC give you pressure - we see some pressure and real commitment now from this - and the goal to strive for this
o Because of OIL we recognize a good spin of collaboration
o EC will be always be outsiders
- Consortium is showing confidence and commitment as a whole
- Certain individuals demonstrated a strong desire making FI-WARE a success
- Maturity improving - best showing until so far
- Other project that bring value can and should be brought in - spirit is there and should be more reflected in the collaborations
o Some possible downsides to this as well - see below
- Overall quite good impressions
Not so positive points
- Missing deliverables - it is ok, but only if this has been explained and communicated
- If you hear it at the review first, this is not good
- The period report - it is always helpful - even "only" in a draft at the review meeting - we previously even stopped the review for this reason... we don't do that anymore, but:
o At least draft must be provided
- WP2
o Requirement backlog might be cleaned - some indication seem to be not considered - but the chapters demonstrated in their presentation that overall it seems to work
o Architecture deliverable more or less ok
o Technical roadmap - more or less a wish list
o Open spec - in the past
§ Cloud and ioT reject in past, difficult to read in the documents - a lot of abbreviations and little amount of text - but the wiki is as well difficult to read which might discourage developers
o Testing deliverable - was resubmitted.
o Testplan - Not so much a plan - can be improved
o User and programmers guide - are all OK
- OIL
o Focuses the effort
o FI-WARE and current WP still in the driver seat
o Let not so much do the new call 3 partners - this still is a collective effort
o There might not be a lot of time for a lot _new_ GEs in the upcoming month ... & FI-PPP will go on
o Feedback expected from OIL events
- Validation
o Process can be improved - questionnaire not acceptable - contains some weird questions, some improvements possible there
- Then: some concerns about campus party
o Attending: 3rd party & campusors, but as well enterprise developers - all are different parties
o Do not put all eggs in one basket
- Before December 10 - there is a danger for a different mode - change from execution to proposal writing - This is a potential risk ... fi-ware progress endangered if this would happen
- 3rd party
o Proper processes need to be in place
o Catalogue need to be clear (T&C) it is the window to the world
o Internal pressure is better means to motivate the consortium
- Sustainability of OIL and 3rd parties - this is a concern
o Ecosystem strategy in WP11 - but you don't get that feeling from the partner industry exploitation part
- General attitude of the <{{{{ consortium, team, on the review ??? }}}}>
o We are picking they decide
o Need for justification and accountability
o Market - interaction - feedback - ...
- We praised the commitment by some people, but can they put their companies along?
- More evangelize - not only on events - but there is more than that out there
- Collaboration WP was not so much consolidated
o Germany, France activities, which not presented centrally - and there potentially were others out there.
o Consolidation seems to be focused too much in one country
- Market again (negative parts)
o Public Sector as a target not considered
o Smart enterprises not considered
o But you can't cover all
- Bringing more
o Reference implementation, developer kits - not to die lose the speed
- <Downside to expansion>
o If you accept everything as a GE this is bad - then we will have a lot overlaps, incompatibilities
o Need to be properly selected
o As a positive results in 1 year from now would be
§ Guidelines how to define new generic enablers
- Interaction with phase 2 projects
o What can the commission do? Welcoming activities:
§ Architects week
§ Webinars
§ Architecture check at the end of this month
- Goals should be to improve fi-PPP - Reviewers will have recommendation to the EC and not only to the consortium
- Concern raised
o Does fi-ware completely understand the campus party?
o How to get the message across to those people
o The people here - institutional thinking - that is the way you work so this is OK - but campus party attendees might think differently: free spirit, happy thinking
o You can't convince a 17 year old with a 70 year old
o Suggestion: infiltrate the community by light-minded people of your company
o Highly depending on the people room
- Recommendation by EC (only one at the moment)
o Individual exploitation plans would be changed - tour de chamber was made - most companies said they would change
o That is what needs to be done
§ 3 weeks from "now" - max 2 pages
o Basically - from everybody on the table
o If SAP won't change it - just send the current one - that's fine
o EC would like to know what your plans are - how seriously are you with the whole thing?
REVIEWERS
- Li
o Recommendations to EC have been done before
o Interaction with UC projects - importance with validation of GEs
o UC are mend to the be there and they should give your project
o Should work much better as we learned from their experience
o 1. Recommendation to EC
§ Ask the EC to ensure phase 2 UC projects in validation the FI-WARE platform
§ Starting point would be: make use of as many GE as possible
§ If there is a problem with use - work collaboratively to resolve it with the fi-ware team
§ That should be the main program goal
§ We will write it down and will be get to the EC
o Fi-ware should ensure collaborative work on the UC - good spirit of the collaboration
§ We need a very good set of GE, what the world would adopt
o 2. Recommendation to EC: Make the Testbed recognized - well beyond the fi-ppp
§ Run and potential optimize
§ All obstacles would and should be removed
§ Xifi and fi-ware must work collaboratively
§ Continue to grow - lifetime beyond the projects
- DG - only one comment/remark
o Viral community - campus party - get it right
o If it gets wrong, you can't get it right the second time
o If FI-WARE is irrelevant in 2013 it will be hard to reconcile this in 2014
Arian closing statement
- Work has improved
- Don't lean back
From: fiware-demo-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-demo-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Garino Pierangelo
Sent: Freitag, 14. Juni 2013 08:59
To: Juanjo Hierro; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-demo at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-demo] R: Notes of the preliminary feedback of the review meeting
Dear Juanjo and All,
Thanks a lot for these notes, I'm very happy to see that this time the positive points are more than the not so-positive (ok, let's wait the report, surprises might always come there...). I'm also happy to see that there was some positive remark on I2ND too.
Overall, I wish to thank you for the massive effort you have put and continue to put in making FI-WARE progress towards its objectives. Thanks also for the huge work done by all, first of all the Telefonica Team, and of course the support by all the other Partners and Teams deeply involved in making the project successful. If we look at the different review meetings we had so far, I see that the efforts pay!
However we still have a long way to go, so we need to concentrate on the next FI-WARE challenges!
Best Regards
Pier
Da: fiware-demo-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-demo-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-demo-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro
Inviato: giovedì 13 giugno 2013 18:51
A: 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>; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-demo at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-demo at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Oggetto: [Fiware-demo] Notes of the preliminary feedback of the review meeting
Dear colleagues,
Here it goes my notes regarding the early feedback provided by the EC/reviewers after the review meeting.
Overall statement: Technology is there but go to market requires improvement.
Positive points:
* Technology work has been improved and this has to be recognized
* New technology implementations - a whole good package
* GEs with potential are there
* I2ND has improved a lot addressing concerns in the past despite still some references to legacies
* IoT has improved also a lot - more focus between integration of IoT and BigData is necessary
* They look for the delivery of the State of the Art deliverable as a mean to check how the GEi owners see their GEis benchmark with those of incumbent players
* Attention for smart cities is welcome because it helps to bring focus
* Live Demo is good - lot of GEis - it shows that integration was not that much an issue as reviewers initially were afraid
* The potential of some GEis is backed by the market analysis
* Market analysis is very good deliverable
* Seems not to be big delays regarding delivery of Release 2 - which is excellent - they feel more confident that the Release 2 will be ready for the launch of OIL in the planned dates
* OIL is the very focus and that is right
* Indeed, they see a real commitment of the consortium towards launch of the FI-WARE OIL in the Campus Party (providing the pressure they hadn't manage to achieve during previous reviews)
* Impression of team work
* Consortium shows confidence and commitment specially certain individuals
* They appreciate that we are looking for ways to on-board new projects / third-parties although we have to be careful (see not so-positive points)
* Overall: quite good impression
Not so-positive points:
* Some missing deliverables
* Periodic report should be available prior the meeting
* Backlog might be more clean but there are some indications that it still requires some work
* Technical roadmap still a wish list
* Open Specs that were rejected were improved although still they are difficult to read. This doesn't only apply to document deliverables but also the wiki.
* Validation has to be improved. Acceptable that is how it was defined in the AB but some improvement is possible there - note: I believe that the recommendations by the reviewers to the EC, explained by Man-sze Li (see below) may have to do with this opportunity to improve
* Third party involvement: they like to see the deliverable submitted
* Some concerns about limiting third parties to Campus Party is like putting all eggs in one basket so that we have to avoid that.
* FI-WARE Catalogue is the window to the world and has to be more appealing and, of course, clear terms and conditions should be there for the GEis
* Concerns about attitude towards some recommendations ("we are big so we decide") - note: I guess that this mostly apply to the accountability issue
* More needs and effort on evangelism
* About expanding FI-WARE to allow other GEis and overall othe GEis from third parties you have to be careful to avoid that what you are going to provide now gets diluted - Useful to have some guidelines/rules about what will be considered a GE
* Some concern about how FI-WARE can really gain the attention of the campuseros community - you should find a strategy to connect to the geeks that attend, maybe involve people (the youngers in your development teams) that can speak their same language
Formal request by the EC: Each company has to submit their individual exploitation plans in few weeks. Even those who said they would not be different to the already submitted (a letter stating so would be enough). Don't need many pages, just some paragraphs. Information will be treated as confidential.
Regarding acceptance/rejection of deliverables they said that they haven't finished their evaluation and that they couldn't provide us a report yet.
Man-Sze Li took the floor and informed us about recommendations that the reviewers will officially submit to the EC. In particular the following two:
* They will recommend to the EC that it takes actions to ensure that UC projects really assume their mission to use as many GEis as they can, validate GEis, provide feedback and work together with FI-WARE to solve those issues that may appear.
* They will recommend to the EC that it takes actions to ensure that the OIL/XiFi facilities will continue available after the FI-WARE and XiFi projects finish
I believe this is all. If someone else took more notes, please circulate so that we can all share them.
Last but not least, let me thank to all of you for your contribution to this review. Let's cross fingers for the best.
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
________________________________
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
Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
[rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130614/208ba8e3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 677 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130614/208ba8e3/attachment.gif>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy