Dear colleagues,
I would like to start a discussion about prioritizing the work outlined below or how to in general go forward:
Baseline assumptions:
· We need to have "something" reasonable available in the "OIL"
· The OIL will mainly be a SaaS offered by an FI-WARE instance provider for GE instance providers to again offer a GE as SaaS
· There might be a PaaS aspect to it, but currently we rather foresee Mashups or the use of predefined images, than a diverse set of arbitrary runtime-containers and really a lot of "development" (at least in the first months)
· Adopting parties will mainly "consume" and test out our assets
· In most cases "something" will be the software asset installed on a virtual machine or being provided together with a blueprint to instantiate a new virtual machine in order to introduce customizations for a given GEi.
· The "user", "consuming party" aspect:
o Whom are we really targeting with our approach?
o I this "consuming party" really known to the heart for everybody in the consortium (Are we even targeting all the same people?)
o Do we have some first-hand "consumers" that we could show or seek feedback from (not UC2 but real PPP-outsiders?)
· Keep in mind that these "new" people won't come with a lot of funding and not with a written proposal on what they want to do - therefore they need to be given time to understand and do some ideation to adopt the concepts to their specific needs (most potentially they even need some kind of consulting for this)
ð Overall pretty much things that are not currently foreseen or tailored by the work that the DoW outlined us to do.
Some first conclusions drawn:
1. More priority for a GE instance provider within the OIL would be the two options
a. One SaaS instance ("Global SaaS") - potentially multi-tenant enabled
b. Blueprint based SaaS-enablement ("Dedicated SaaS")
... only thirdly we would foresee that people start using our binary package and/or even contribute to our development.
2. We currently don't know the "customer" enough - Conclusions what the "consuming parties" needs (conclusion 3) should be verified and refined.
3. Consuming parties need to understand
a. Why are we doing all of this (Motivation of FI-WARE going public and building trust and allow sustainable use)
b. What is in for them
c. How to grasp the functionality and "learn" what the GE _instance_ will provide (not the GE-implementation)
d. How to introduce new customizations to the instance
e. How to introduce custom data to the system
f. ...
g. How to come up with new ideas and (domain) extensions and/or possible use cases on top of the generic platform. (Ideation - just on paper and no code involved)
h. Whom to contact in order to verify their ideas
i. ...
j. Only very much later
i. develop components that would interact with our GEi
ii. request missing functionalities from the existing GE-implementations
iii. enhance existing GEis with aspects that have been missing previously
iv. ...
4. Somebody would start firstly composing (rather than developing) new applications on top of existing GEs (like the live-demonstrator), which is more like a combination of particular baseline assets and their relevant configuration, than a "classic" software bundle.
Some other possible conclusions:
- Many consuming parties will
o not have a clue what PPP is and why we are doing this
o not read pdf-deliverables in order to understand the assets
o not read our architecture
- E.g. the current "Installation and Admin"-guides mainly focus on the "Installation" part. Not many consuming parties will read this as the GEis will be readily installed (as of conclusion 1 they will be mainly SaaS). At least as many components have no "public"-delivery model (e.g. open source), their binary packages for PP won't be "available" for consuming parties.
- E.g. the Unit Testing Plan and Report - I think I don't have to say much to this one: I don't know anybody who really draws something positive out of them. What would be more needed are integration tests (how would somebody be able who deployed a set of GE-I in a landscape "judge" that they are rightfully setup and finally work together as planned)
- E.g. the User and Programmers Guide - we have been drawn by the reviewers to document the APIs and therefore most of the content is tailored for consuming developers (which I would see as the third-hand citizens at least judging by the order of priorities I outlined in conclusion 3
Which overall is a pity as in some sense we might have been working with the wrong assumptions previously, but we need to talk about adopting our priorities to the new situation.
Overall I think it's easy to grasp where I'm going to:
- provide kick-starter information and material in order to understand the motivation of FI-WARE & the plans for the OIL for 3rd parties to consume it
- do not only look for the DoW driven deliverable as outlined below, which only would give us the freedom of ticking of some pdf-documents. But give more guidance on how to improve from a content perspective and have the right content for the right people. This might be:
o Teach GE-instance providers to decide if they want to provision their stuff as Global SaaS and/or Dedicated SaaS (and the related background in relation to the blueprints)
o Compile new sections or desired content for the documentation (might be aligned with the questions raised in conclusions 3)
o Increasing a review cycle won't help, as for the conclusions drawn above: the content just isn't there yet - and the pity is: it is even not clear what we really need to provided (otherwise I wouldn't feel the need to writ this :))
- Overall: work on the priorities first and let us try to forget what the DoW really would force us to do in relation to paperwork - at least for the given time until September.
Well summing up, this is currently not crystal clear how to go forward. I even can't provide to you the amount of people who would be entitled to work on this - or assume which effort this will draw from us. I think it is clear that this was not planned, and although Miguel mentioned this e.g. in the WP10 telco: WP10 might have _some_ effort reserved from every partner for this, this can't be happening all on WP10.
But anyway I wanted to start this discussion and seek some feedback. Might be as well that I'm seeing this one "too complicated" and we have some shortcuts that we are able to take. I would be happy for them.
Comments/suggestions?
/Thorsten
From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo
Sent: Dienstag, 18. Juni 2013 15:34
To: fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Deadline for delivery of GEs in June: 28TH of JUNE
Dear all,
As agreed on June, 3 we expect all the delivery for June ready on the 28th of June. "Ready" means all the manuals and the software.
As we said, how you organize it internally in each WP is your bussines. I just want the manuals linked from the private wiki:
* https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/FiwareDeliverablesR2
I will start reviews from the links I see here, and only the blocks named "Contributions for June/2013 ". Make sure that you link the right pages from there.
Given the complaints in the past, I'll say that prefer the private wiki as the source for all but I will not complain if someones goes to the public one and edits their GEs directly there.
I will send an email to the general list but this does not discharge the WPL/WPAs from the obligation of communicating the procedure. In fact, my email will be deliberately shallow and deadline-oriented.
I spoke privately to all WPLs in Brussels but one (there is therefore a pending conversation with one of you - I started but we could not finish). The idea is that before the 28th you will perform internal reviews of the deliverables to make sure that all is ok. When you deliver it means that you ensorse it and it has your "seal of approval", meaning the the guidelines are met. In other words, we will reduce the review cycles by delivering more quality.
If a given partner refuses to comply with the guidelines you must try to convince them but if they persist in their refusal, you can let us know (a soon as you know it, do not wait for the deadline!!)
I also remind you something said on the 3rd of June:
We will carry out a more strict documentation review during July, ensuring that what we will put at hands of developers will meet the quality standards required by most of the developers. TID has gone for approving and submitting documentation linked to some of the FI-WARE GEis in some of the chapter to avoid delaying delivery of complete chapters (since all the info linked to GEis in one chapter are integrated as part of the same official deliverable) and because we didn't have the resources/time to carry out such detailed revision (probably the project reviewers also won't have them). However, many of the FI-WARE GEi will be tested by a significant number of developers when they will become available in the FI-WARE OIL and they will carry out a very detailed analysis of the documentation at hand. In this respect, we have to avoid the risk that the whole FI-WARE is judged because of negative comments on a single FI-WARE GEi that didn't deliver good-quality documentation.
Best regards,
Miguel
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco
_/ _/ _/ _/ Telefónica Distrito Telefónica
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigación y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 9
_/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicación S/N
_/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain)
Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77
e-mail: mcp at tid.es<mailto:mcp at tid.es>
Follow FI-WARE on the net
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130620/2d9ccb08/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy