dear juanjo, as testbed team coordinator, i'd like from you a bit more elaboration on the matter. on one side i think this mixed approach (from a complete delay to a trialed delay) is much better than to announce a delay of three months impacting on the whole fi-ppp programme, on the other, however, as testbed team we have to replan again our work. at the last phc you said that red.es is not able to provide the infrastructure in the due time for many very well understandable reasons. which is now the plan? at least the three following main questions, but many other are there as well, need to be addressed: 1. shall we engineering ingegneria informatica provide a trial infrastructure, as i suggested many times, for the time being, i.e. till when red.es had made the promised investments and set-up a reliable fi-ware dedicated infrastructure? 2. how to select the first set of "ready" ge implementations? as you well know several of them are mutual dependent. is this aspect well taken into account? 3. which uc projct has planned to use the testbed? under which conditions and scenarios? i guess answers to the above questions are now extremely important as time is passing and end of july is quickly coming. thank you for your view on the matter. ciao, stefano 2012/4/13 Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es> > Hi all, > > Yesterday, a virtual meeting of the FI-PPP AB took place and I took the > opportunity to explain the UC projects that we have proposed our PO to > perform an adjustment of the planning of several of the short-term > milestones linked to FI-WARE. My intention was to gain their support in > approval of this re-planning so it can be seen as something that would go > for the sake of the programme (exactly as I see it). Gaining the support > from the UC projects was a target goal in this movement as highlighted > during our last joint WPLs/WPAs confcall. > > Despite I explained this to them during the virtual meeting, we agreed > that I was going to send them an email elaborating on the matter. Below, > you will find that email. Please devote the necessary time read it > carefully. > > Also, as per agreement in our joint WPLs/WPAs confcall, I have modified > our proposal for re-planning so that we keep the target goal of delivering > a first take of the FI-WARE Testbed by end of July. We would just split > the first release into one first deployment to be delivered by end of July > and then an upgrade to happen by end of September. > > Personally, I rather doubt that UC projects are going to work hard in > the FI-WARE testbed during August-September due to the summer holidays and > the fact that they will be pretty much devoted to development of their > proposals to phase 2. However, I can live with keeping the milestone end > of July and, of course, this should be helpful in selling the re-planning > because, overall, UC projects are not affected (they will receive the > FI-WARE API specifications and will be able to play with the FI-WARE > Testbed more or less on the initially planned dates). I have also > informed Arian that we would keep the milestone for delivery of the FI-WARE > Testbed by end of July. > > Note that, besides the educational sessions programmed in May 21st and > June 4th, I have proposed to setup a dedicated team that will be devoted to > follow-up and push progress on tickets issued by UC projects. Note that > they will issue tickets regarding doubts/questions/clarifications on the > FI-WARE Architecture, Roadmap or Open Specifications deliverables using the > "FI-WARE General Support" tracker that was setup in the FI-WARE project in > FusionForge. It's true that devoting time to handle interaction with UC > projects around the trackers means devoting the necessary resources, so > that is another good argument to ask for the re-planning. > > Comments, feedback are welcome. Be aware that I'm trying to move fast > in getting a final decision on the re-planning and the implementation of > the action points to improve overall communication with the UC projects. > > In order to sync and be able to discuss/resolve further questions, I > suggest we schedule a joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall on Monday, > starting at 11:00am. > > > 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 > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FI-WARE replanning proposal Date: > Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:08:29 +0200 From: Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es><jhierro at tid.es> To: > ab at fi-ppp.eu <ab at fi-ppp.eu> <ab at fi-ppp.eu> > > Hi all, > > In this mail, I will try to summarize what I explained to you during our > confcall yesterday. > > Within FI-WARE, we feel that is rather important to improve > communication with UC projects, leading to a better overall understanding > of FI-WARE by UC projects. In order to achieve this goal, we have > identified two first action points: > > - Improving overall response to tickets issued by UC projects (both > regarding the "FI-WARE Theme/Feature/Epic Request" and the "FI-WARE General > Support" trackers) by means of setting up a dedicated team to follow-up and > push progress on tickets. > - Setting up two full-week f2f "educational sessions" where UC > projects' and FI-WARE's teams can meet together so that: > - Architects and potentially members of the different FI-WARE > Chapter development teams will have the opportunity to meet developers from > the UC projects, elaborate on the architecture and functionality of the > different FI-WARE GEs and answer their technical questions > - UC project architects can present the architecture of use case > scenarios, elaborating on how they plan to use FI-WARE, as to collect > feedback from FI-WARE members. > > > Despite we have put in place a well defined process, supported by tools, > to handle the interaction between UC projects and FI-WARE, the usefulness > of them has been limited, leading to a sentiment of frustration both on the > side of UC projects and FI-WARE. This in my view is a consequence of > starting the UC projects at the same time as FI-WARE, which has been proven > not to be the best idea. Actually, UC projects have produced a lot of > tickets, but they are too much generic or high-level so it takes too much > time to interact until being able to provide accurate answers. On the > other hand, UC projects can argue that they couldn't be more concrete until > there is no more detailed information about FI-WARE. We have the > opportunity to recover from this situation because we are now able to > discuss about more concrete stuff, namely the FI-WARE Architecture > description (already available now) and the FI-WARE API specifications (to > be delivered soon.) The above mentioned action points would help to make > sure that the communication between UC projects and FI-WARE around this > more concrete stuff is put at the right level. > > > > However, despite we see this is a the right thing to do at this moment, > it is also a fact that implementing the above mentioned action points would > keep architects and development teams in FI-WARE apart from their current > development activities at a critical point in the development, very close > to a number of relevant milestones according to the FI-WARE DoW. > > > Because of that, FI-WARE has made a proposal to its PO about a > re-planning of some of its short-term milestones. This would allow > FI-WARE to allocate the necessary resources that would be demanded by the > action points mentioned above and ensure success of that action points. > This re-planning, however, has been designed in order to minimize overall > impact on UC projects. It is also worth noticing that it would lead to > adjustment of dates for deliverables due in month 12 and 15, but the rest > of dates can be kept so dates linked to delivery of the FI-WARE second > release would not be affected. The proposed re-planning can be summarized > as follows: > > - Keep delivery of FI-WARE GE Open Specifications (i.e., REST API > specifications) due in month 12 since they seem to be in the critical path > of UC projects and there shouldn't be so much problems delivering them on > that date. Some of them may arrive sometime mid May but not later and, > in any case, would be available for the educational sessions. > - Delay those M12 deliverables dealing with delivery of FI-WARE GE > software, accompanying guides and unit testing plan 2 months, so they are > delivered on month 14 (end of June). This would also apply to > deliverables linked to FI-WARE Development Support Tools also due in month > 12. > - Keep delivery of the FI-WARE Testbed in month 15 (end of July) but > split deployment of the first FI-WARE Release into two steps, so that a > first set of GEs will become available by end of July, but a second set of > GEs will become available in an upgrade of the testbed to take place by end > of September. Indeed, subsequent upgrades will be planned every three > months after end of September, or even more frequently after each FI-WARE > Sprint, following an Agile approach. What would come by end of July > instead of end of September is described in the FI-WARE Technical Roadmap ( > http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Technical_Roadmap). > Note that this split into two steps would not apply to all chapters. If > no split is declared in the Technical Roadmap for a given Chapter, it means > that all GEs in the first release for that chapter are planned to be > available by end of July. > - Delay or drop some deliverables due in month 12 whose delivery is > not so critical for the programme at this moment from FI-WARE's point of > view: > - Drop deliverable on "System/software Engineering Method for > FI-WARE" due by month 12, since the FI-WARE consortia considers that > working on this deliverable rather makes more sense once the first release > of FI-WARE has been delivered. We have proposed to drop the first release > of this deliverable, (keeping just two releases on months 24 and 33) > - Delay deliverables about "Third party innovation enablement in > FI-WARE" and "State of the Art Analysis" due by month 12 so they are > post-poned to month 21 or at least month 18. > > > Hope this helps to explain the point. As you see, the two points that > may impact UC projects are the first and third and, there, we essentially > don't change what we initially planned. The other points may be > considered indeed internal to FI-WARE. However, our understanding is > that our PO, Arian Zwegers, wants to verify whether UC projects agree that > the measurements we intend to put in place to improve communication with UC > projects, mostly preparing and carrying out the educational sessions, are > rather important and would benefit the programme. In other words, he > wants to see whether delaying deliverables in FI-WARE can be justified for > the sake of the programme. > > From my point of view, approval of this re-planning is required to be > able to support the educational sessions and also push management of the > interaction with the UC projects at the right level. So the right thing > to do would be to tell the EC that "yes, we need to have these educational > sessions and to improve the management of the interaction through the > tracker systems". > > If you agree that this is actually the right thing to do, our request > would be that you inform your PO ASAP that this proposal is on the table > and give them a positive feedback. It may happen that they were planning > to contact you soon, because our PO was going to ask them. That was also > why I wanted you to be informed. > > As per agreement in our confcall yesterday, let's have a continuation > confcall on Monday afternoon to wrap up on this important matter. In the > meantime, don't hesitate to ask any question you may have so that I can > answer over the email. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-wpl mailing list > Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20120413/88f9ee58/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy