Hi, Thanks for your question because actually it may look like there was something missing :-) But actually I did that on purpose :-) That would mean that the reviewers and PO would only have 30 minutes lunch break (or more, it depends how long they want to discuss the previous presentation or whether they decide to have one hour lunch and spend the first half of it discussing while having a sandwich/pizza :-) But for the rest of us, we would have one hour lunch break. And I didn't make it shorter (we probably can have a lunch break of 30 minutes or 45 minutes) in order to allow the reviewers and the PO to at least have 30 minutes lunch break. Copying the rest of the list since the question and this clarification is worth sharing. Cheers, Juanjo On 21/4/22 11:31, Jane van der Plas wrote: > Hola Juanjo, > > I’m almost sure you are aware but on both versions, after the > presentation before lunch there is no "Break. Discussion among > reviewers and PO”. Perhaps it makes sense to make lunch 30 min and add > the break for 30 min. To make sure the time is there for the reviewers. > Saludos, > Jane > >> On 21 Apr 2022, at 10:56, Juanjo Hierro <juanjose.hierro at fiware.org> >> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I have defined adraft agenda for the i4Trust midterm review >> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19989rdE3cr60UAF4UIz1gzGxTeTECcdYv0y0-NmdSgo/edit?usp=sharing>for >> your revision >> >> Considering all the constrains that the PO provided, I believe >> there are not that many different options :-) We may discuss what >> is the right order or duration but the topics to cover are the following: >> >> * i4Trust motivation and vision, major achievements, path ahead >> (question mark is whether to add i4Trust demo or not, see >> comments below) >> * i4Trust Open Calls - 1st Open Call and preparation of 2nd Open Call >> * i4Trust Ecosystem building activities >> * i4Trust mentoring of experiments from 1st Open Call >> * i4Trust Exploitation and Sustainability Plans >> * Numbers (efforts & costs) >> >> and I believe we should not plan less of 20 minutes presentation + 10 >> minutes Q&A for any of them, with the exception of the presentation >> on numbers which I guess we can perform faster. >> >> I have proposed two agenda options: >> >> * Option A: Gives more time to the presentation on Ecosystem >> Building (30 minutes presentation +10 minutes Q&A), a bit more >> than with the rest. In this option, we would give some hints >> about the technology as part of the initial presentation. >> * Option B: Reduces time for lunch and gives another 10 minutes to >> initial presentation so that we can run a demo of i4Trust (which >> could make sense if we want to emphasize the message we are >> talking about software that works) >> >> In both options: >> >> * I have decided not to book a specific slot to talk about the >> i4Trust technology because, otherwise, following PO constrains >> (30 minutes of discussion with reviewers after each presentation) >> we would struggle with the time, I'm afraid. >> * the order I have chosen is because we managed to have a positive >> result with the 1st Open Call so I thought we would keep things >> in a rather good mood if after the first presentation, where we >> should already be able to highlight achievements, we elaborate on >> results of the Open Call. >> >> Anyways, your feedback is more than welcome. >> >> Please try to provide it along the day. I have sent to Rosa, Rajiv >> and Angeles an invite of half an hour for tomorrow, right before the >> DACP meeting, so that we can close the agenda (unless they give me an >> explicit positive answer in response to this mail). >> >> If you want to make a different proposal, please duplicate the tab >> of option B, rename it as option C and play with times. Note that >> you only need to play with the duration (cells in yellow) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Juanjo Hierro >> Chief Technology Officer >> juanjose.hierro at fiware.org >> www.linkedin.com/in/jhierro <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhierro> >> Twitter:@fiware <https://twitter.com/fiware>@JuanjoHierro >> <https://twitter.com/JuanjoHierro> >> <foundation-logo.png> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: IMPORTANT Fwd: i4Trust, 951975 - midterm review, 18 May >> 2022 - preparations >> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:51:25 +0200 >> From: Juanjo Hierro<juanjose.hierro at fiware.org> >> To: i4trust at lists.fiware.org >> >> >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I received this mail from our PO last week while I was on holiday >> so I couldn't forward it to you at that moment. >> >> Main urgent matter is that we have to propose a draft for the >> agenda of the review on May 18th by May 22nd (this Friday). >> >> I will come with a proposal before 14:00 today so that we can close >> a proposal between today and tomorrow and send it on Friday as requested. >> >> Any input you may want to send to me in the meantime is welcome. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Juanjo Hierro >> Chief Technology Officer >> juanjose.hierro at fiware.org >> www.linkedin.com/in/jhierro <https://www.linkedin.com/in/jhierro> >> Twitter:@fiware <https://twitter.com/fiware>@JuanjoHierro >> <https://twitter.com/JuanjoHierro> >> <foundation-logo.png> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: i4Trust, 951975 - midterm review, 18 May 2022 - preparations >> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 10:25:24 +0000 >> From: NAGY Annamaria<Annamaria.NAGY at ec.europa.eu> >> To: Juanjo Hierro<juanjose.hierro at fiware.org> >> CC: cnect-h2020-951975 at ec.europa.eu<cnect-h2020-951975 at ec.europa.eu> >> >> >> >> Dear Juanjo, >> Please find below further information and guides on the upcoming >> midterm review and reporting. >> *Review meeting, test meeting* >> The review meeting will take place on*18 May 2022*, via >> video-conference between*9.30-17.00*. During this review the >> consortium will report on the achievements of the first reporting >> period. I let you choose the platform that suits the consortium best, >> so you will need to send out the calendar invitations for the review >> and for the test meeting as well to all participants, including me >> and the reviewers. >> Please organise a*30 min test meeting*at the start of the rehearsal, >> on*17 May*in the morning, when I can join in with the two reviewing >> experts to test features (presenting, chat function, connection >> quality), to agree on meeting rules (raising hands, chat, Q&A, etc.) >> and also to introduce ourselves. It is very important that all review >> participants attend this technical test. >> *Agenda, participants, presentations* >> I would like to ask you to send me the*draft agenda*as soon as ready, >> but not later than*22 April*. After we finalise it, I will forward it >> to the reviewers. >> When planning the meeting, you can follow the work packages or >> propose any other structure that you find best to demonstrate the >> achievements of the project. >> Please include also: >> >> * 5-10-minute slots after each presentation for questions and >> discussion with the reviewers. (During presentations the chat >> function could be used by reviewers to ask questions.) >> * a 30-minute break at the end of all presentations, when I can >> have a closed meeting with the reviewers >> * 15 minutes for feedback from the reviewers to the consortium and >> wrap-up >> * 30 minutes in the very end dedicated to filling in the innovation >> questionnaire >> >> Regarding participants, all should have an active role in the review >> meeting. >> Please gather*all presentations*of the review and share them with me >> and the reviewers the*day before the meeting*. The slides are part of >> the review material. >> *Periodic Report* >> The Periodic Report, consisting of a technical and a financial part, >> should be submitted via the Portal by*31 May 2022*(within 60 days >> after the end of the reporting period). >> To facilitate the reviewing experts’ work, please send me >> a*draft*version of the*Technical Report*one week before the review, >> by*11 May*. >> The technical report consists of two parts. >> >> * Part A – contains the cover page, a publishable summary and the >> answers to the questionnaire covering issues related to the >> project implementation and the economic and social impact. Part A >> is based on the information entered by the participants through >> the periodic and continuous reporting modules of the Portal. >> * Part B – the narrative part that includes explanations of the >> work carried out by the beneficiaries during the reporting period >> and an overview of the progress towards the project objectives, >> justifying the differences, if any, between the work expected >> under Annex I of the Grant Agreement (Description of the Action) >> and the work actually done. Part B needs to be uploaded in the >> system in PDF format. >> >> *Innovation questionnaire* >> We collect information on innovative ideas and organisations in our >> projects via a questionnaire to be filled in at the end of reviews. >> You have received an information letter about that and the template >> via the Portal. Pavel Smrz will be your designated "innovation >> expert" in addition to his task as a technical expert and he will >> fill out and submit the online form after the review meeting. >> As indicated in the innovation information letter, please provide me >> by*11 May*with: >> >> * the title of each innovation being developed in the project (20 >> to 200 characters) >> * a description of each innovation (50 to 500 characters) >> >> As preparation for this exercise, the consortium should reflect on >> each question for each of these innovations. It is recommended that >> key partners for each of these innovations are present at the meeting. >> *Further guidance* >> Technical report template with explanations (Part A and Part B): >> http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/gm/reporting/h2020-tmpl-periodic-rep_en.pdf__ >> Online Manual, Reports & payment requests: >> https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/grant-management/reports_en.htm >> On-line Manual, Periodic reports: >> https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/grant-management/reports/periodic-reports_en.htm >> Guidance on H2020 periodic reporting electronic submission:__ >> https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/display/IT/Periodic+Reporting >> Guidance on the technical report submission:__ >> https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=8913035#Reportingprocess%E2%80%94general-B.CompletingyourcontributiontotheTechnicalPartofthePeriodicReport__ >> Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. >> Many thanks and best regards, >> Annamaria >> *Annam**ária Nagy* >> *** >> *<image001.gif>* >> **European Commission** >> *DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology* >> *Unit G1 - Data Policy and Innovation* >> >> *EUROFORUM 1/294 >> 10, rue Robert Stumper, L-2557 Luxembourg* >> *Tel.: +352-4301-33850* >> *annamaria.nagy at ec.europa.eu <mailto:annamaria.nagy at ec.europa.eu>** >> __________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies >> on the following links: >> -https://fiware-legal.readthedocs.io/en/latest/PersonalDataProtectionPolicy.html >> -https://fiware-legal.readthedocs.io/en/latest/FIWARECookiesPolicy.html >> >> >> i4trust mailing list >> i4trust at lists.fiware.org >> >> To unsubscribe from i4trust mailing list, go to the information page >> of the list at: >> https://lists.fiware.org/listinfo/i4trust > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/i4trust/attachments/20220421/a4591110/attachment-0001.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy