Dear Mentors, As discussed during the mentors sync session, the final outcome of the selection committee for all experiments is updated in this <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XOVhj9SZeIOZPSALDEkeuLY1OoZH4WOa9eKh_Gg0XWE/edit#gid=2026593444> sheet. *Column P* provides the overall status of assessment whereas *column Q* provides status of payment approvals.* Column R* provides the comments from the Selection Committee which you must take into account when sending feedback to experiments. Primary mentors of each experiment must send out feedback to their respective experiments, preferably *today or latest by Monday EoD*. Please include your co-mentors and me, Juanjo and Rosa in cc for those emails that are sent out. Key points about the feedback: *SGA signature (applicable to all experiments irrespective of their outcomes)*: If the SGA is not signed, however, their outcome is (conditionally) accepted means that they have passed the milestone 1 and their payments are put on hold until SGA is signed, so they must followup on closing the SGA signing process in order to release the payment. Make sure that it is clearly explained to them. *For the experiments that have been accepted*: They should expect payment soon provided they signed SGA. In terms of feedback, this is your opportunity to give recommendations for future milestones if you wish to give to these experiments. However, they must be anyways informed about the outcome of the Milestone 1 review. *For experiments that have been conditionally accepted*: These were primarily experiments that did not attend the welcome event and training camp. Welcome event and training camp was not attended despite being marked as mandatory. This had been initially determined as a reason for rejection and exclusion from the program but the Selection Committee has finally agreed to relax this requirement as far as certification of LEBDS is achieved by the defined deadline (28/02/2023). So their outcome is conditionally accepted based on the above condition which must be clearly explained to them. Note: I have already updated all sheets to reflect that KPIs 1.1 and 1.2 are now classified as SHOULD instead of MUST *For experiments that have been rejected*: Please collate the comments from the sheet and formulate a clear feedback to these experiments. They should be given 1 week of time (assuming it is realistic) to fix the non met KPIs/deliverables. They will be re-assessed during round 2. So next week should be given as time to fix the open items and the remaining 2 weeks must be for the review process. Round 2 ends on 16th Feb. *IMP*: to keep track of experiments that were sent feedback please update the column S indicating the status of feedback. Also, make sure that IMPs are updated with the status and date of completion Regards, Rajiv Rajani CTO iSHARE Foundation +31 61 796 2003 <+31617962003> iSHARE.eu <https://www.ishare.eu/> rajiv at ishare.eu <https://iSHARE.eu> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/i4trust-mentors/attachments/20230127/101acad6/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy