Dear All, Here is the overall feedback we got this morning from our Project Officer Arian. As you will see the Security Chapter was reported in the Highs of Arian and one of the Chapter (with wp10) they praise again. This time they not only appreciated good progress we achieved but also what we did to further engage with ICT Security community and project outside of FI-PPP "Club". This was really appreciated as answer to "Outlook for FI-WARE" and quoted as an example for others to follow. Once more I'd like to thank each and every of you for your commitment and the work you performed. And Yes let's continue like this with the aim to perform even better (for sure we can manage since altogether we have the capacity to do so). Of course I will come back to the minutes of this M18 EC review at next WP8 audio conference planned next Friday (10am-12am). Best Regards, Pascal PS: Please note the project this time was marked "acceptable" (so we managed altogether to recover and remains quite convinced we could do even better at project level for next review - so let's work in that direction .!) De : fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Juanjo Hierro Envoyé : vendredi 30 novembre 2012 13:52 À : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc : fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-pcc] Feedback from the EC and reviewers regarding the FI-WARE Review Dear all, Please find below my very raw notes of the feedback provided by Arian. I couldn't take note of everything, but I believe is 90% complete. I take the advantage of this mail to thank you for your great effort since July and the support given to the project by you and teams of your chapters/WPs. We are now "on track" (reviewers have agreed that progress can be now considered acceptable) thanks to all this effort. Talk to you on Monday, during our regular joint WPLs/WPAs confcall at 11:00am (yes, works have to continue :-) Cheers, -- Juanjo Introduction: The review report to be submitted in draft format just before Christmas. This feedback is prior to that. Highs: Appreciated very much the efforts. It is clear that efforts have indeed been made. Dealing with submission/resubmission, they recognized the so large number of deliverables that were submitted. It clearly should be considered an achievement in itself. More coherence between the partners. Acting as a team more than in previous reviews. Dissemination in some areas (Smart Cities) ongoing. They appreciate this. Technical support documentation has improved. Users' guide and unit testing plan are in the right direction Tools WP in the right direction. Concern here about the adoption of the IDE inside FI-WARE (eat your own dog food) Security area progressing well. Welcome initiatives regarding involvement of other projects in other units. They liked the Architecture Weeks and how they continued with the webinars. They hope we will continue with them for the second phase and record webinars, making them available to the general public. Lows: Not enough eating our own dog food. Example: FI-CoDE development environment within FI-WARE. Service Composition Area: didn't see the real need for so many composition technologies. This has now been clarified. However, the withdrawal of Ericsson and DT leads to the need to seriously consider how to move forward. SMART Cities is a good area to look but not the only one. Please take a broader approach. Exploitation: Good analysis but didn't see how this translates into the plan. They have seen slides in Sevilla about the plans, but they are not so clearly documented in the deliverables. Technical documentations has improved but still needs to be improved. Big need to have the whitepaper. This because it is clear the need to explain how FI-WARE GE can be used and the whitepaper can be a good instrument. Catalogue as published very helpful, but we have to go a step further and try to create entries related to what may correspond to packages of several FI-WARE GEs that support concrete usage patterns. Catalogue should also answer what can be done with GEs more clearly. Shouldn't only be targeted to developers but other audience who take decisions on technology adoption. You shouldn't wait to have things (website, catalogue, etc) until they are perfect. More "Agile" approach requested. Still complaining about traceability of stakeholders behind features. More strategic thinking to standardization is needed. They will come with more concrete recommendations in the review report draft. Recommendations: Focus should be moved into adoption and use. "Successful program" vs "Successful project". Define process to incorporate results from third projects. Usability aspects: packaging of FI-WARE GEs and how such "packages" support certain usage patterns. Explained through the whitepaper but also in the FI-WARE Catalogue. Convincing Use Cases / Showcases not just relying on what UC projects may develop. Try to define/develop ones. Live demo in the right direction. Don't wait until perfection but good enough. Be more "Agile" (this is also related to "eat your own dog") Capacity Building project and UC trials may run some support issues. More attention is needed to define how this can be solved. You should come with an approach about how to deal with support issues. Creation of trackers per GE in the right direction. Recommendations about standardization efforts in the BigData and Cloud area will come. Very draft ideas regarding 3rd Open Call. FI-WARE should come soon with a draft text for the Call they wish to review. Not sure whether it is realistic to use all the budget for the 3rd Open Call. Amendment: a lot of changes. We have to be flexible in resource allocation. If you need to reallocate, reallocate. List of GEs: need to extend the existing list with the complete list involving the GEs planned in Releases 2, so that everybody gets a clear picture on what is going on. They understand that this information was available in the FI-WARE Architecture document and the Technical Roadmap but they like the idea of having a list like the one that currently exists for Release 1 covering also Release 2. 4 specifications regarding composition technologies. However, the implementation of two of them will not be available because partners have withdrawn. It makes sense to allocate the effort that was allocated there to the other GEs so that they become more generic. Take up of previous recommendations: Some were addressed, some of them not completely addressed. Some others obsolete. They will review them but will highlight some: Architecture encompassing: should be addressed through explanation of usage patterns. 1.3.5 about Open Innovation Lab: clarification about relationship with Capacity Building project. Among other aspects, support issues. 1.3.6 developers communities. Ok to rely in 3rd Open Call but should do more. Not constrained about project allocation. From the point of view of the EC, efforts allocation described in the DoW should be considered tentative. Website. Some improvements already, but need more work. Clarification of GE vs Complementary Enabler should be clarified. GE documentation has improved but traceability have to be introduced. whitepaper urgently needed. FI-WARE Software Releases done SAP GEs delivery done FI-WARE Testbed delivered webinars very much appreciated and have to be broaden to third parties through videos and public webinars. Developers community Live demo was done and they will encourage to bring them also in next reviews. Point 11.e which was availability of GEs beyond FI-WARE has to be extended not only regarding the current list of GEs available but for those that will come Overall: Project will be marked acceptable. Q&A: Jose Jimenez elaborated on the fact that it is now a pity that some UC projects in phase 1 get discontinued because that means that a lot of know-how and background that was acquired (and indeed meant a significant investment by all) may be lost. He wondered whether mechanisms could be put in place to allow them to continue and find proper funding for the efforts that would require, maybe if not in this program, in others. Arian responded that there was nothing than may prevent them to use the Open Innovation Lab. A different issue is the funding, but that may come from another programs and definitively the FI-PPP should welcome projects funded by other programs to be able to join the FI-PPP and carry out their activities taking advantage of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab, for instance. Jose Jimenez asked whether the EC could take a more proactive role here and either incorporate recommendations in the calls of those programs or at least certain value this aspect in evaluation of proposals. Regarding that, Arian suggested that a letter is written and sent to the Head of Unit (Jesus Villasante). Juanjo asked about acceptance/rejection of deliverables: Answer: they cannot provide information about acceptance/rejection of deliverables because they didn't have time to discuss this in detail but that information will come in the draft review report before Christmas. Nevertheless, they can anticipate that judgement will take into account the more strategic and forward-looking approach they believe should be taken now. Also, considering the fact that some of the deliverables will anyway need to be evolved and submitted again accompanying Release 2. Juanjo commented his personal concern about traceability of features. This might be a very nice academic exercise but requires time, may imply re-structuring things and distract focus. Juanjo asked the PO and reviewers to be careful here. Arian welcome the feedback. -- ------------- 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) 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-security/attachments/20121130/9014e0fc/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-security/attachments/20121130/9014e0fc/attachment.txt>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy