From fla at tid.es Mon Sep 3 15:35:31 2012 From: fla at tid.es (FERNANDO LOPEZ AGUILAR) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:35:31 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] Peer review of FI-WARE Open Specifications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alex, Please find thereafter our answers: SM URL ? Additional Resources ? Link to private wiki for the current version of the spec [Fernando] done ? The following text should have the URL not "[2]": For more information about OpenStack APIs please refer to [2] [Fernando] done ? Resources Summary ? To be consistent the URI should include [Fernando] done //server ? Faults ? Link goes to a "blank" page in the documentation and the reader is expected to look at the contents tree to expand the section. Perhaps it would be better to provide links to Synchronous Faults and Asynchronous Faults. [Fernando] done ? API Operations ? Whilst the OpenStack Compute Developer Guide gives examples, perhaps it would be useful to direct link to an example for each operation? [Fernando] done Fernando L?pez Aguilar Cloud Computing fla at tid dot es +34 914 832 729 Telef?nica I+D (R&D) Ronda de la Comunicaci?n s/n Distrito C, Edificio Oeste 1, Planta 5 28050 Madrid, Spain [cid:65E3CA3A-3DFE-41B6-8F69-2AD965EA42FA at hi.inet] ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 66394 bytes Desc: PastedGraphic-1.tiff URL: From john.m.kennedy at intel.com Wed Sep 5 15:55:42 2012 From: john.m.kennedy at intel.com (Kennedy, John M) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 13:55:42 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] FW: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Message-ID: <70851B256BA35449A5ADF81F0FADF88115D23D1E@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Hello all, Review feedback as discussed on our confcall... Best, - John From: fiware-i2nd-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-i2nd-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Garino Pierangelo Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:36 AM To: fiware-i2nd at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-i2nd] I: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Dear Partners, Please find attached the report by EC concerning the project Review we had in June. As you'll see and as anticipated, the results are not positive, and require that we devote all the efforts to make sure the quality of results coming out from our cooperation really improves. Best Regards Pier Da: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: gioved? 30 agosto 2012 09:08 A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Hi all, Please find enclosed the final review report from the EC and our team of reviewers. The review report is negative, as expected. However, there are some more negative surprises like the fact that they have rejected 50% of the costs linked to Open Specification deliverables (despite nowhere in the DoW it is specified how much effort would correspond to development of Open Specifications in the DoW). In my honest opinion, the statements regarding evaluation of the Open Specifications deliverable are highly arguable. Just as an example, note that it is stated that "The deliverable does not provide sufficient basis for practical implementation by software developers, which is its main purpose" regarding all Chapters. I don't know what your opinion is but I believe this is fundamentally wrong. I will elaborate on a mail following this one about the statements made in the review regarding Open Specifications and why I believe many of them are fundamentally wrong. Whether we should produce a formal answer or not is unclear to us (TID) so we would like to hear your personal opinion. Certainly answering it will distract us from our main focus now. But on the other hand, resubmission of Open Specifications will depend very much on what we accept as valid comment from reviewers. Maybe the best option is to answer formally but do it later, given the fact that they request to resubmit Open Specifications by end month 18, i.e., end of October. Therefore, we would focus now in stabilizing the FI-WARE Testbed, ensuring that a proper collaboration with UC projects is in place and working well, and finalizing resubmission/submission of deliverables linked to Architecture, Technical Roadmap and 3rd Party Innovation Enablement. Again, we would like to hear your opinion. Definitively this is something we should discuss in our next follow-up confcall. Don't hesitate to share this with your teams. It should be used to encourage people to pay attention to meeting milestones and ensure that contributions come with the required quality. Also to explain why we had to put in place hard measures targeted to ensure that we were going to deliver. We have made a big effort to have the FI-WARE up and running without impacting UC projects, so I feel positive that the overall evaluation of the project will improve soon. But we cannot relax and have to work hard together to ensure that the FI-WARE First Release becomes a success in the upcoming months. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:51:12 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , , , , , , Dear Jose, Please find enclosed the outcome of the third FI-WARE review and the review meeting that took place on 21-22 June 2012 in Brussels. No paper version will follow. Please distribute the review report to the partners in the consortium. Please acknowledge the receipt of this e-mail. Best regards, Arian Zwegers Scientific Officer European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3 Net Innovation Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Office 3/095, B - 1160 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32-2-2984424, Fax: +32-2-2962178 Web site: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/index_en.htm Assistant: Vanessa Vanhumbeeck, Tel: +32-2-2964939, Email: Vanessa.Vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu Postal mail address: European Commission, Office BU25 03/095, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outcome FI-WARE review 3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55588 bytes Desc: Outcome FI-WARE review 3.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE Review 3 Report.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 414426 bytes Desc: FI-WARE Review 3 Report.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Ireland Limited (Branch) Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland Registered Number: E902934 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fla at tid.es Wed Sep 5 16:30:28 2012 From: fla at tid.es (FERNANDO LOPEZ AGUILAR) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 16:30:28 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] FW: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] In-Reply-To: <70851B256BA35449A5ADF81F0FADF88115D23D1E@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <70851B256BA35449A5ADF81F0FADF88115D23D1E@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: <99488CAA-21C2-4E43-A29E-E3C95C139448@tid.es> Thank John, IMHO and after review some Open APIs I have not the same opinion that the commission. It is true that some of them must be improve, (some a lot...). But some of them are good or very good and I think that one developer could take them and develop a complete compliant FIWARE Open API. Fernando L?pez Aguilar Cloud Computing fla at tid dot es +34 914 832 729 Telef?nica I+D (R&D) Ronda de la Comunicaci?n s/n Distrito C, Edificio Oeste 1, Planta 5 28050 Madrid, Spain [cid:65E3CA3A-3DFE-41B6-8F69-2AD965EA42FA at hi.inet] El 05/09/2012, a las 15:55, Kennedy, John M escribi?: Hello all, Review feedback as discussed on our confcall? Best, - John From: fiware-i2nd-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-i2nd-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Garino Pierangelo Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 7:36 AM To: fiware-i2nd at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-i2nd] I: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Dear Partners, Please find attached the report by EC concerning the project Review we had in June. As you?ll see and as anticipated, the results are not positive, and require that we devote all the efforts to make sure the quality of results coming out from our cooperation really improves. Best Regards Pier Da: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: gioved? 30 agosto 2012 09:08 A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] Fwd: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Hi all, Please find enclosed the final review report from the EC and our team of reviewers. The review report is negative, as expected. However, there are some more negative surprises like the fact that they have rejected 50% of the costs linked to Open Specification deliverables (despite nowhere in the DoW it is specified how much effort would correspond to development of Open Specifications in the DoW). In my honest opinion, the statements regarding evaluation of the Open Specifications deliverable are highly arguable. Just as an example, note that it is stated that "The deliverable does not provide sufficient basis for practical implementation by software developers, which is its main purpose" regarding all Chapters. I don't know what your opinion is but I believe this is fundamentally wrong. I will elaborate on a mail following this one about the statements made in the review regarding Open Specifications and why I believe many of them are fundamentally wrong. Whether we should produce a formal answer or not is unclear to us (TID) so we would like to hear your personal opinion. Certainly answering it will distract us from our main focus now. But on the other hand, resubmission of Open Specifications will depend very much on what we accept as valid comment from reviewers. Maybe the best option is to answer formally but do it later, given the fact that they request to resubmit Open Specifications by end month 18, i.e., end of October. Therefore, we would focus now in stabilizing the FI-WARE Testbed, ensuring that a proper collaboration with UC projects is in place and working well, and finalizing resubmission/submission of deliverables linked to Architecture, Technical Roadmap and 3rd Party Innovation Enablement. Again, we would like to hear your opinion. Definitively this is something we should discuss in our next follow-up confcall. Don't hesitate to share this with your teams. It should be used to encourage people to pay attention to meeting milestones and ensure that contributions come with the required quality. Also to explain why we had to put in place hard measures targeted to ensure that we were going to deliver. We have made a big effort to have the FI-WARE up and running without impacting UC projects, so I feel positive that the overall evaluation of the project will improve soon. But we cannot relax and have to work hard together to ensure that the FI-WARE First Release becomes a success in the upcoming months. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE: 3rd review outcome [Ares(2012)1008872] Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:51:12 +0000 From: To: CC: , , , ,, , ,, Dear Jose, Please find enclosed the outcome of the third FI-WARE review and the review meeting that took place on 21-22 June 2012 in Brussels. No paper version will follow. Please distribute the review report to the partners in the consortium. Please acknowledge the receipt of this e-mail. Best regards, Arian Zwegers Scientific Officer European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology E3 Net Innovation Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Office 3/095, B - 1160 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32-2-2984424, Fax: +32-2-2962178 Web site: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/foi/lead/fippp/index_en.htm Assistant: Vanessa Vanhumbeeck, Tel: +32-2-2964939, Email: Vanessa.Vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu Postal mail address: European Commission, Office BU25 03/095, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl _______________________________________________ Fiware-i2nd mailing list Fiware-i2nd at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-i2nd ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 66394 bytes Desc: PastedGraphic-1.tiff URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Mon Sep 10 16:58:01 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:58:01 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] Fw: [Fiware-wpl] Following Agile more rigorously Message-ID: All, See below the renewed guidelines for Agile planning and tracking. Please, make sure you are follow the process. Thanks, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 ----- Forwarded by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM on 10/09/2012 05:56 PM ----- From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Date: 03/09/2012 11:23 AM Subject: [Fiware-wpl] Following Agile more rigorously Sent by: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Dear all, Once we have made the effort to clean up the backlog, we should catch-up and start applying Agile more rigorously. We at TID believe that some of the issues we have experienced regarding delay could have been early detected and fixed if we had follow-up Agile and planned Sprints more rigorously. Chapters should make an effort to start planning minor releases and Sprints starting beginning of September. We propose to apply a number of simplifications to the current approach, in order to make it lighter: Leave the public Wiki only to document Epics and Features in the Backlog. Note that Testing Plans will be formulated over Features. Drop some fields documenting Epics and Features. Candidates are: Scope (always Generic Platform) Relative Priority Source (doesn't add value over stakeholders+owner) Rationale (difficult to fill) Version (Mapping of Features/Epics into releases should be captured on the Technical Roadmap. A field here would introduce risks of inconsistencies. If it were related to version of the contents of the entry, we would be adding complexity over the history that is already controlled by the wiki ... is strictly needed or was just nice to have ?) Enabler (can be determined from the Id) Keep User Stories documented only at the level of the trackers. Note, though, that this may require to add custom fields (e.g., description of how a user story will be tested), so that we would like to hear others' opinions. Work items would remain also documented only at the level of the trackers. All Chapters should plan the Sprint of one month the week before. Due to the holidays, we will make an exception for this September so that Chapters have to have the planning ready by the end of this week. Planning should translate into: A number of User Stories in the Backlog (tracker) become planned for development during the Sprint (they get assigned the corresponding Sprint Id) A number of Work Items that are also planned to be carried out during the Sprint (either selected from list of work items pending in the backlog or identified as new during planning). Examples of work items are: Work required in order to deal with refinement of a Feature into User Stories Work required in order to deal with refinement of a Epic into Features (and maybe some work items) Work to be done in the FI-WARE Testbed (e.g., deploying an update of some GE) Work to be done in the FI-WARE Catalogue Contributions to development of deliverables in WP2 (e.g., Architecture Description, Technical Roadmap, Open Specifications, etc), WP10, WP11 or WP12 Participation in some workshop with some UC project Solution of some ticket(s) issued in the FI-WARE Global Support tracker Peer Reviews etc Work items may typically be identified and planned by the WPL. It is expected that work items may help to capture and follow-up Action Points identified within a WP. Costs reports will be compared against activities planned during Sprints. If a partner gets not assigned a User Story or a Work Item during a Sprint, it means that it is not working on anything, therefore cannot justify any cost. I hope to be able to review this proposal during our joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall this afternoon. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) 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 pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-wpl mailing list Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Tue Sep 11 21:43:28 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:43:28 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] weekly meeting Message-ID: All, I am attending the FI-PPP AB meeting in Tel-Aviv tomorrow, to present Cloud Hosting capabilities and progress (including partial demo). Hence, I will not be able to attend our weekly call. Please, keep working on updating the tracker (as well as other ongoing tasks, of course) -- and let me know when done. Thanks, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fla at tid.es Wed Sep 19 15:33:33 2012 From: fla at tid.es (FERNANDO LOPEZ AGUILAR) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:33:33 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] [FIWARE] List of member of cloud with roles Message-ID: Hi all, Here you can find the list of people and role of our Chapter... https://forge.fi-ware.eu/project/memberlist.php?group_id=14 Fernando L?pez Aguilar Cloud Computing fla at tid dot es +34 914 832 729 Telef?nica I+D (R&D) Ronda de la Comunicaci?n s/n Distrito C, Edificio Oeste 1, Planta 5 28050 Madrid, Spain [cid:65E3CA3A-3DFE-41B6-8F69-2AD965EA42FA at hi.inet] ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 66394 bytes Desc: PastedGraphic-1.tiff URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Wed Sep 19 16:17:15 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:17:15 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] weekly meeting minutes -- 19/9 Message-ID: Attendees: IBM (Alex), Intel (Thijs, John), Technicolor (Henk), UPM(Irina), Inria (Lorenzo), TID (Fernando) Minutes: The demo at FI-PPP AB meeting last Wed went well. The UC projects are now more aware of the capabilities we will provide in the testbed. This might lead to new requirements from their side. We need to proceed with the second round of peer reviews of architectural specifications. Action Item: Alex to send out more details later today. We are making progress with the testbed installations. OpenStack (incl. Nova and Swift) are installed. Resolving some network configuration issues. CDMI on top of Swift seems to be functional. The next steps include: 1) resolve the remainder of the issues with Nova, 2) Nova configuration for UC projects -- projects, users, etc, 3) Verify that CDMI interface is fully functional, 4) Install & verify OCCI, 5) Install and integrate SM, 6) Install and integrate the new Portal. FI-WARE project review is tentatively scheduled for the week of November 26th. The event in Sevilla is tentatively scheduled for the week of November 5th (including GEs demonstrations). There is ongoing discussion on additional meetings -- plenary, education week, etc. Need to see what would be the best strategy to have an intensive discussion within the WP (in particular, do we need a separate F2F meeting). We need to start using tracker in a more systematic way, per Juanjo's recent instructions. We will spend some time during our next weekly meeting (Oct 3rd) to review progress in September sprint and plan for October sprint. Action Item [all]: update the tracker by October 2nd We need to decide on the roles of Inria and Thales going forward. A meeting is being scheduled for next week. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Tue Sep 25 13:51:50 2012 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:51:50 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-cloud] Architecture peer review results for Cloud chapter Message-ID: Please, find below the peer review comments received from the I2ND chapter. Please, start applying changes to the corresponding pages, as follows: main architecture page -- Alex DCRM page, general -- Alex DCRM page, OCCI section; DCRM API -- John/Thijs SM, SM API -- Fernando Object Storage, Object Storage API -- John/Thijs Cloud Proxy, Cloud Proxy API -- Henk The deadline is end of the month. Let me know when done, so that I can briefly review the results. Thanks, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 ----- Forwarded by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM on 25/09/2012 01:43 PM ----- From: Garino Pierangelo To: Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM at IBMIL, Cc: Juanjo Hierro , Hans Einsiedler Date: 21/09/2012 05:18 PM Subject: R: [Fiware-wpl] Second and third peer reviews of FI-WARE Architecture Description and Open Specifications Dear Alex, please find attached the file containing the comments coming out by the review we did on the Cloud Hosting pages. Please feel free to contact us (reviewer names are in the file) for any clarification about the comments. BR Pier Da: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 5 settembre 2012 11:51 A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-wpl] Second and third peer reviews of FI-WARE Architecture Description and Open Specifications Hi all, Following the agreement during our last joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall, we will carry out a second and a last third peer-review of the Architecture and Open Specifications during September and October, respectively. We will start this second peer-review starting on September 10th, just to make sure that the first peer-review gets completed and the peer-reviewers can rely on already revised contents. Please, make sure that you have completed the first review by end of this week. We will also try to carry out this reviews more formally, as to make sure that all peer-reviews take into consideration the same points. For this reason, a form that has to be completed by peer-reviewers is provided at: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/docman/view.php/7/1262/FI-WARE+Peer-Review+Form+12-09-05.docx Its usage is therefore mandatory. Since we will not start running this peer review until beginning of next week, don't hesitate to propose any improvement or ask any doubt regarding the peer-review forms in the meantime. Do not forget to incorporate these peer-reviews as part of the Sprint planning that, regarding September, you have been asked to complete the planning of the September Sprint by end of this week (September 7th, EOB). Now regarding planning of the second peer-review, the proposed plan is as follows: Chapter to be reviewed Reviewing chapter Data Cloud Cloud I2ND Apps IoT IoT Data I2ND Security Security Apps Leaders of reviewing chapters are empowered to designate those members of their teams that will be involved in the peer-reviews and how peer-review tasks will be assigned to them. As we commented the first time, we encourage that the peer-review of FI-WARE GE Open Specifications parts are carried out by members of the team that have the profile of developers. This second review should finish by end of this month, executing the following calendar: Personalization of forms per chapter (now until September 10th): we suggest that you take the form and particularize it to peer-review of the chapter that was assigned to your chapter: add sections corresponding to each GE personalize section 1.2.6 on handling comments from the project reviewers, so that you include there the excerpts from the project reviewers you believe it is applicable to check Start of review: September 10th (please plan things, i.e., identify assignments and distribute work after personalization of the peer-review forms, before this date so work starts effectively on September 10th) Reviewing chapter sends comments to leader of reviewed chapter, following the attached forms, with cc to me: September 20, 09:00am Each chapters implement recommended changes: September 30 17:00 CET. I know that the calendar is tough, but it is also true that we have to work hard to recover. I count on your commitment to get this done. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE Cloud_Hosting Peer-Review_by_I2ND.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 412371 bytes Desc: not available URL: