From manieri at eng.it Wed Apr 3 00:13:57 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 00:13:57 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver. Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April In-Reply-To: <51530C94.9010708@eng.it> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0A9B9D@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <51530C94.9010708@eng.it> Message-ID: <515B5825.2000304@eng.it> Dear All, another round to finalise the new WP10 description. Please check the slight changes included and review the new task focused on OIL. Please check also the description (missing from most of you) of the contribution expected in each task and verify you have the proper effort allocated in the attached xls. Do not forget to shift/add effort in the new 10.6 whenever needed. New deadline - with the agreement of Javier, in CC - is tomorrow lunch time, thanks in advance, A. Il 27/03/2013 16:13, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: > For those who have not replied yet. > > A bit more time, but due to the Easter holidays and the meeting in > Madrid you're kindly requested to provide you reply (all partners need > to reply) by no later than Thur 28th April, End of Day. > > Best, > > A. > > -------- Messaggio originale -------- > Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE > DoW dealing with PMs reallocation > Data: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:16:26 +0000 > Mittente: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ > A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > CC: subsidies at tid.es > > > > Dear all, some of you are telling me that you need more time because > you need to contact with the partner involved in your WP. It is > reasonable. > > So, please, provide the update DoW by April 2^nd , 2013. Please > don?EUR^(TM)t forget to activate the control change of the document. > > Thank you very much for your contribution. > > BR > > Javier. > > *De:*JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ > *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 9:00 > *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > *CC:* JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; subsidies at tid.es > *Asunto:* RE: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW > dealing with PMs reallocation > *Importancia:* Alta > > Dear all. > > Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract > from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and > modified if needed by each WPL. > > I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the > changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. *Please, each > WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today*. > > Please review: > > Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) > > Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) > > Description of each task. (word file) > > Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. > > BR > > Javier. > > *De:*JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA > *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 > *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu > ; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > > *CC:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ > *Asunto:* Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW > dealing with PMs reallocation > > Hi all, > > A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my > response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification > of further delays on the side of the Commission. > > If you believe that I should have added something in my response or > you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. > > 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) Coordinator > and 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: *** > > > > Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs > reallocation > > *Date: *** > > > > Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 > > *From: *** > > > > Juanjo Hierro > > *To: *** > > > > > > *CC: *** > > > > > , > , , > , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" > > > Dear Arian, > > Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your > message below ... > > > On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu > wrote: > > Dear Juanjo, > > *The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, > and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. * > > I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here > the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird > pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered > by the grant agreement. > > > I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has > not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other > way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to > reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has > concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts > in the things they have decided to concentrate on). > > I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more > worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were > participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. > > One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE > is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but > with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there > is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear > role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to > the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, > imho, in achieveing good results. > > Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and > academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry > reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes > increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry > is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the > industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad > on EU industry. > > > The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I > honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be > considered in a very first approach: > > * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been > transferred to an academia partner: > > o Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the > implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the > IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would > support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able > to commit to support this interface in their product for the > 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here > an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an ETSI > M2M implementation already rather than to be able to develop > it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made us feel > more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an > Architecture which already considered support to the relevant > ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from > any industry partner in Europe so that's why. > o Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an > implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of > the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM > basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset > (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve > to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. > Second because they were committed to contribute their > implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering > the code of the Store as open source could be something that > would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are > many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is > open source so we expect this will call the attention of third > parties. > > * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not > correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement > FI-WARE GEs: > > o PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond > to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is > not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to > setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be > commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who > could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop > a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also > committed to implement it as open source and that is also > relevant to ensure sustainability. > o When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that > finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that > we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other > tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, > initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM > because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing > with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and > contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to > assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the > look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of > the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made > sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement > some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not > initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in > considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the > Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. > o Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found > that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not > enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. > > > This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more > elaborated response can be provided if needed. > > Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt > tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without > any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) > cannot be correct. > > > We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion > as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are > still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand > that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major > changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, > so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an > amendment of the DoW. > > Then, what is most important is *what happens with the contributions > from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB.* > > > Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any > relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who > was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the > ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation > of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... > > What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson > Composition Engine (ECE) > > What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson > IoT Gateway > > In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So > the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which > Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." > > Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? > > If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their > contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? > > > Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps > Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE > GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing > these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying > on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we > couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE > so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the > whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry > out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on > the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already > other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not > critical to find a replacement for the ECE. > > Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE > "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called > "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. > > > The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the > IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially > replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by > NSN. > > Specific questions: > > 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of > Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM > until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to > assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and _will be > involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!"_ > > > Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will > start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... > Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its > beginning, but in different WPs. > > 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at > 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? > > > I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not > so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, > all of them are Thales ... > > > Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the *Electronic-only > signature and transmission of Form C *(see attachment)? > > > Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. > > Cheers, > > -- Juanjo > > > Best regards, > > Arian. > > PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early > response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the > ones in the grant agreement?EUR? > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] > > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM > > To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) > > Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es ; > Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez > > Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with > PMs reallocation > > Dear Arian, > > Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new > > amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending > > (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in > > our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding > > some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to > > handle withdrawal of several partners. > > All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC > > (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. > > We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end > > of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is > > aligned with an approved DoW. > > Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes > > already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in > > amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in > > the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of > > PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures > > (overall funding is kept the same). > > Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd > > reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the > > consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going > > to take over their responsibilities. > > We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the > > changes summarized here. > > We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your > > agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the > > DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the > > existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over > > the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep > > their investments they have been making so far. > > No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this > > proposed PMs reallocation. > > We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo Hierro > > ------------- > > 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) Coordinator > > and 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE effort - WP10 (ENG).xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 17313 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE-DoW-Amendment4 - WP10 (ENG)_depaMIguel_Andrea.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 85172 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Apr 3 03:24:49 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:24:49 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] New shared usage table for phase 2 now is on-line Message-ID: dear all, as agreed during the first day of the architect week the table for the usage of the ges from the uc project phase 2 is now on-line at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqGGeaQGro3fdEd6bGhLQWtNai1jeGN5UnJMeEdxZ0E#gid=6 please all wpl/wpa to check ges and dates and complete with actual names of geis. ciao, stefano -- 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: From manieri at eng.it Wed Apr 3 12:25:34 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:25:34 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April - Specifically to TID, THALES, TI, FT In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FDCBE0@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FDCBE0@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <515C039E.9000801@eng.it> Dear partners, I've not received any feedback from each of you. I've also checked into the SPAM folder... Please consider to add your specific contribution to the Tasks but the 10.2. If no reply will be received by today 13.00 I'll consider your participation in a task WITHOUT an explicit role as an inconsistecy/typo that will be solved moving all your effort and contribution to the task 10.2 Integration. Please take this message very seriosly, since Javier need to submit this amendment and we're already in tremendous late. Best, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April Data: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:29:06 +0000 Mittente: Sandfuchs, Thorsten A: stefano de panfilis CC: Andrea Manieri Hi Stefano, Thanks for your support on the matter ? I didn?t change anything for 10.6. - 5 PM moved from ?integration? to validation - changed DoW description of 10.5 to update towards current status and consensus of the FI-PPP AB - definition of all relevant work for SAP in the tasks Please check if I missed something. I want to additionally make you aware that although Task 10.6 has TID as ?lead?, they have no PM assigned in your task-xls ? this might be an error?! Best regards, /Thorsten *From:*stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] *Sent:* Mittwoch, 3. April 2013 11:16 *To:* Sandfuchs, Thorsten *Cc:* Andrea Manieri *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April dedar thorsten, -Change the DoW that the AB-meeting resolution on how to proceed with the validation is properly reflected. This would mean to change the text of 10.5 in order to reflect the validation questionnaire rather than the coverage matrix. This needs some time and the approval of Stefano. it makes sense to me. please provide the text very asap as said by t andrea (not need "s" at the end, in italian the female of andrea is andreina ...) -Shift some more effort (on task basis) from integration towards validation, as it seems to be much more effort to support the validation, than the actual integration ? I will be able to send this by tomorrow lunchtime (Thursday, right?) -10.6: Additionally I would see some effort already contributed by SAP towards the terms and conditions definition of the OIL ? for me it is unclear if this can be as well ?booked? on the new 10.6 or if we would take this as part of WP2 efforts (although there is no relevant task for this). not sure about this. i think this is "normal" effort of coordination i.e. wp1 or wp2 where normally effort of our lawyers is accounted. may be ask to javier and juanjo about this. i'd not bias t10.6 with managerial apsects. ciao, stefano Needed change: take this topic as part of the to-be-elaborated topics and SAP as partner in the Task. Best, /Thorsten Best, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! *From:*fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ] *On Behalf Of *Andrea Manieri *Sent:* Mittwoch, 3. April 2013 00:14 *To:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu ; stefano de panfilis; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver. Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April Dear All, another round to finalise the new WP10 description. Please check the slight changes included and review the new task focused on OIL. Please check also the description (missing from most of you) of the contribution expected in each task and verify you have the proper effort allocated in the attached xls. Do not forget to shift/add effort in the new 10.6 whenever needed. New deadline - with the agreement of Javier, in CC - is tomorrow lunch time, thanks in advance, A. Il 27/03/2013 16:13, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: For those who have not replied yet. A bit more time, but due to the Easter holidays and the meeting in Madrid you're kindly requested to provide you reply (all partners need to reply) by no later than Thur 28th April, End of Day. Best, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- *Oggetto: * Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation *Data: * Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:16:26 +0000 *Mittente: * JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *A: * fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu *CC: * subsidies at tid.es Dear all, some of you are telling me that you need more time because you need to contact with the partner involved in your WP. It is reasonable. So, please, provide the update DoW by April 2^nd , 2013. Please don???t forget to activate the control change of the document. Thank you very much for your contribution. BR Javier. *De:*JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 9:00 *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu ; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu *CC:* JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; subsidies at tid.es *Asunto:* RE: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation *Importancia:* Alta Dear all. Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and modified if needed by each WPL. I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. *Please, each WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today*. Please review: Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) Description of each task. (word file) Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. BR Javier. *De:*JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA *Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 *Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu ; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu *CC:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ *Asunto:* Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Hi all, A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification of further delays on the side of the Commission. If you believe that I should have added something in my response or you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. 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) Coordinator and 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: * Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation *Date: * Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 *From: * Juanjo Hierro *To: * *CC: * , , , , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" Dear Arian, Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your message below ... On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Juanjo, *The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. * I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered by the grant agreement. I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts in the things they have decided to concentrate on). I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, imho, in achieveing good results. Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad on EU industry. The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be considered in a very first approach: * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been transferred to an academia partner: o Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able to commit to support this interface in their product for the 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an ETSI M2M implementation already rather than to be able to develop it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made us feel more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an Architecture which already considered support to the relevant ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from any industry partner in Europe so that's why. o Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. Second because they were committed to contribute their implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering the code of the Store as open source could be something that would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is open source so we expect this will call the attention of third parties. * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement FI-WARE GEs: o PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also committed to implement it as open source and that is also relevant to ensure sustainability. o When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. o Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more elaborated response can be provided if needed. Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) cannot be correct. We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an amendment of the DoW. Then, what is most important is *what happens with the contributions from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB.* Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson Composition Engine (ECE) What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson IoT Gateway In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not critical to find a replacement for the ECE. Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by NSN. Specific questions: 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and _will be involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!"_ Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its beginning, but in different WPs. 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, all of them are Thales ... Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the *Electronic-only signature and transmission of Form C *(see attachment)? Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Arian. PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the ones in the grant agreement??? -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es ; Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE-DoW-Amendment4 - WP10 (ENG)_SAP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 91470 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE effort - WP10 (ENG)_SAP.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 16031 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Wed Apr 3 15:23:17 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 15:23:17 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April - Specifically to TID, THALES, TI, FT In-Reply-To: <515C039E.9000801@eng.it> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FDCBE0@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> <515C039E.9000801@eng.it> Message-ID: Dear Andrea, please find attached TI?s revision of the description concerning WP10. I apologise, your mail went into a separate folder which I didn?t properly check in the past few days (and it was not the junk mail one ;-) My colleagues pointed this out to me and I could make the modifications right now. I have accepted all the modifications in the document before inserting mine, so it should be easy to find them. If you find any inconsistency in my description please let me know, many thanks. BR Pier Da: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Andrea Manieri Inviato: mercoled? 3 aprile 2013 12:26 A: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Oggetto: [Fiware-testbed] VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April - Specifically to TID, THALES, TI, FT Dear partners, I've not received any feedback from each of you. I've also checked into the SPAM folder... Please consider to add your specific contribution to the Tasks but the 10.2. If no reply will be received by today 13.00 I'll consider your participation in a task WITHOUT an explicit role as an inconsistecy/typo that will be solved moving all your effort and contribution to the task 10.2 Integration. Please take this message very seriosly, since Javier need to submit this amendment and we're already in tremendous late. Best, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April Data: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:29:06 +0000 Mittente: Sandfuchs, Thorsten A: stefano de panfilis CC: Andrea Manieri Hi Stefano, Thanks for your support on the matter ? I didn?t change anything for 10.6. - 5 PM moved from ?integration? to validation - changed DoW description of 10.5 to update towards current status and consensus of the FI-PPP AB - definition of all relevant work for SAP in the tasks Please check if I missed something. I want to additionally make you aware that although Task 10.6 has TID as ?lead?, they have no PM assigned in your task-xls ? this might be an error?! Best regards, /Thorsten From: stefano de panfilis [mailto:stefano.depanfilis at eng.it] Sent: Mittwoch, 3. April 2013 11:16 To: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Cc: Andrea Manieri Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT:amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver.Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April dedar thorsten, - Change the DoW that the AB-meeting resolution on how to proceed with the validation is properly reflected. This would mean to change the text of 10.5 in order to reflect the validation questionnaire rather than the coverage matrix. This needs some time and the approval of Stefano. it makes sense to me. please provide the text very asap as said by t andrea (not need "s" at the end, in italian the female of andrea is andreina ...) - Shift some more effort (on task basis) from integration towards validation, as it seems to be much more effort to support the validation, than the actual integration ? I will be able to send this by tomorrow lunchtime (Thursday, right?) - 10.6: Additionally I would see some effort already contributed by SAP towards the terms and conditions definition of the OIL ? for me it is unclear if this can be as well ?booked? on the new 10.6 or if we would take this as part of WP2 efforts (although there is no relevant task for this). not sure about this. i think this is "normal" effort of coordination i.e. wp1 or wp2 where normally effort of our lawyers is accounted. may be ask to javier and juanjo about this. i'd not bias t10.6 with managerial apsects. ciao, stefano Needed change: take this topic as part of the to-be-elaborated topics and SAP as partner in the Task. Best, /Thorsten Best, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Andrea Manieri Sent: Mittwoch, 3. April 2013 00:14 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu; stefano de panfilis; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation - new ver. Quick Reaction needed - by 13.00 3rd April Dear All, another round to finalise the new WP10 description. Please check the slight changes included and review the new task focused on OIL. Please check also the description (missing from most of you) of the contribution expected in each task and verify you have the proper effort allocated in the attached xls. Do not forget to shift/add effort in the new 10.6 whenever needed. New deadline - with the agreement of Javier, in CC - is tomorrow lunch time, thanks in advance, A. Il 27/03/2013 16:13, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: For those who have not replied yet. A bit more time, but due to the Easter holidays and the meeting in Madrid you're kindly requested to provide you reply (all partners need to reply) by no later than Thur 28th April, End of Day. Best, A. -------- Messaggio originale -------- Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Data: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:16:26 +0000 Mittente: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu , fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: subsidies at tid.es Dear all, some of you are telling me that you need more time because you need to contact with the partner involved in your WP. It is reasonable. So, please, provide the update DoW by April 2nd, 2013. Please don???t forget to activate the control change of the document. Thank you very much for your contribution. BR Javier. De: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Enviado el: martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 9:00 Para: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; subsidies at tid.es Asunto: RE: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Importancia: Alta Dear all. Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract from the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and modified if needed by each WPL. I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the changes and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. Please, each WPL has to reply with his reviewed DoW today. Please review: Effort by task for each partner. (excel file) Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file) Description of each task. (word file) Thank you for understanding and for your contribution. BR Javier. De: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Enviado el: martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57 Para: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu CC: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ Asunto: Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Hi all, A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification of further delays on the side of the Commission. If you believe that I should have added something in my response or you believe I said something wrong, please let me know. 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) Coordinator and 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: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100 From: Juanjo Hierro To: CC: , , , , "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" Dear Arian, Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your message below ... On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu wrote: Dear Juanjo, The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, and I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered by the grant agreement. I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to reallocate efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has concentrated its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts in the things they have decided to concentrate on). I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were participating in many things, with no significant effort in any. One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE is organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but with the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there is a limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear role of partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to the implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, imho, in achieveing good results. Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad on EU industry. The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be considered in a very first approach: * There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been transferred to an academia partner: * Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the implementation of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the IoT chapter and, while it was agreed with them that they would support an ETSI M2M compliant interface, they were only able to commit to support this interface in their product for the 3rd Release of FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here an opportunity to find someone who could contribute an ETSI M2M implementation already rather than to be able to develop it from the start. This was Franhoufer. This made us feel more confident to keep our initial plans to deliver an Architecture which already considered support to the relevant ETSI M2M standard. There were not many other options from any industry partner in Europe so that's why. * Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of the Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM basically for two reasons. First because they had an asset (WireCloud) part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve to become the Store we were looking for in reasonable time. Second because they were committed to contribute their implementation as open source. Here, we found that elivering the code of the Store as open source could be something that would give FI-WARE better chances to make impact: there are many proprietary commercial stores out there ... but none is open source so we expect this will call the attention of third parties. * The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not correspond to transference of the responsibility to implement FI-WARE GEs: * PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop a good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also committed to implement it as open source and that is also relevant to ensure sustainability. * When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs, initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement some pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not initially foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in considering that the UPM was doing a great job regarding the Cloud portal so it was like natural to select them. * Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found that the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not enough for them to carry out their assigned tasks. This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more elaborated response can be provided if needed. Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without any change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) cannot be correct. We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are still missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand that we should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major changes are incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, so that you can approve them, subject to proper description in an amendment of the DoW. Then, what is most important is what happens with the contributions from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB. Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who was indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the ones that were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation of the IoT Backend Device Management GE ... What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson Composition Engine (ECE) What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson IoT Gateway In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So the problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..." Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions? If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their contribution to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced? Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE GE. The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing these two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying on existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE so therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the whole amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry out that development and we were lucky because we could leverage on the WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already other service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not critical to find a replacement for the ECE. Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE "Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called "Cumulocity". So same questions as above. The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by NSN. Specific questions: 1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and will be involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!" Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... Of course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its beginning, but in different WPs. 2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at 31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party? I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not so much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, all of them are Thales ... Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the Electronic-only signature and transmission of Form C (see attachment)? Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part. Cheers, -- Juanjo Best regards, Arian. PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the ones in the grant agreement??? -----Original Message----- From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es; Miguel Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs reallocation Dear Arian, Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending (some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to handle withdrawal of several partners. All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC (Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level. We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is aligned with an approved DoW. Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures (overall funding is kept the same). Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going to take over their responsibilities. We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the changes summarized here. We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep their investments they have been making so far. No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this proposed PMs reallocation. We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- 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) Coordinator and 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 ________________________________ 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- 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 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. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]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: FI-WARE-DoW-Amendment4 - WP10 (ENG)_SAP_TI.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 92587 bytes Desc: FI-WARE-DoW-Amendment4 - WP10 (ENG)_SAP_TI.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Copia di FI-WARE effort - WP10 (ENG)_SAP_TI.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 17798 bytes Desc: Copia di FI-WARE effort - WP10 (ENG)_SAP_TI.xlsx 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: From henk.heijnen at technicolor.com Thu Apr 4 15:54:15 2013 From: henk.heijnen at technicolor.com (Heijnen Henk) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:54:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Message-ID: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE314C.A89F22C0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE314C.A89F22C0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From mcp at tid.es Thu Apr 4 16:14:23 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:14:23 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes In-Reply-To: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Message-ID: <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> Dear Henk, This is very good news and most welcome. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. Silly question. If I am right, they are asking for contributions and ideas in the context of the Live Demo. My info is that WP coordinates their demo (in your case, there are 2 WPs at stake). I wonder if any of the 2 WPs (or both) are including this in their part of the demo. If so, I guess that one or two of the boxes should go to this. Just wondering ... If you think that this makes sense, I would suggest a check with Pier and Alex as well. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 15:54, Heijnen Henk escribi?: Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image003.jpg at 01CAA051.86578C00] [cid:part2.03040204.04050401 at tid.es] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: not available URL: From henk.heijnen at technicolor.com Thu Apr 4 16:17:07 2013 From: henk.heijnen at technicolor.com (Heijnen Henk) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:17:07 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes In-Reply-To: <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> References: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> Message-ID: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C7946321@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Miguel, Of course, I've already sent (almost) the same email to Cloud and I2ND (In I2ND, TI is developing something on the Cloud Proxy and I'm sure they'll get boxes). Thanks for your feedback Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE314F.DA0A2B40] [cid:image002.png at 01CE314F.DA0A2B40] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:14 To: Heijnen Henk Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Dear Henk, This is very good news and most welcome. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. Silly question. If I am right, they are asking for contributions and ideas in the context of the Live Demo. My info is that WP coordinates their demo (in your case, there are 2 WPs at stake). I wonder if any of the 2 WPs (or both) are including this in their part of the demo. If so, I guess that one or two of the boxes should go to this. Just wondering ... If you think that this makes sense, I would suggest a check with Pier and Alex as well. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 15:54, Heijnen Henk escribi?: Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE314F.DA0A2B40] [cid:image002.png at 01CE314F.DA0A2B40] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Apr 4 16:22:50 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:22:50 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes In-Reply-To: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C7946321@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C7946321@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Message-ID: <9635_1365085371_515D8CBB_9635_1548_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CCD38@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Hi Henk Because IoT expect also to use Cloud Proxy as a gateway, I think that TI should share the same box between I2ND and IoT but I will check with them and come back to you as soon as I have some news. BR Thierry De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Heijnen Henk Envoy? : jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:17 ? : Miguel Carrillo Cc : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Miguel, Of course, I've already sent (almost) the same email to Cloud and I2ND (In I2ND, TI is developing something on the Cloud Proxy and I'm sure they'll get boxes). Thanks for your feedback Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image003.jpg at 01CAA051.86578C00] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3150.A65005D0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:14 To: Heijnen Henk Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Dear Henk, This is very good news and most welcome. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. Silly question. If I am right, they are asking for contributions and ideas in the context of the Live Demo. My info is that WP coordinates their demo (in your case, there are 2 WPs at stake). I wonder if any of the 2 WPs (or both) are including this in their part of the demo. If so, I guess that one or two of the boxes should go to this. Just wondering ... If you think that this makes sense, I would suggest a check with Pier and Alex as well. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 15:54, Heijnen Henk escribi?: Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image003.jpg at 01CAA051.86578C00] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3150.A65005D0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From henk.heijnen at technicolor.com Thu Apr 4 16:25:09 2013 From: henk.heijnen at technicolor.com (Heijnen Henk) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 16:25:09 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes In-Reply-To: <9635_1365085371_515D8CBB_9635_1548_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CCD38@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C7946321@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <9635_1365085371_515D8CBB_9635_1548_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CCD38@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C794634B@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Thierry, Thanks! In fact, I was relying on TI to intermediate between I2ND & IoT. I guess it'll be better for IoT to get one box (who is developing the "IoT gateway"?) Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3150.F98068D0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3150.F98068D0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com [mailto:thierry.nagellen at orange.com] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:23 To: Heijnen Henk; Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: RE: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Hi Henk Because IoT expect also to use Cloud Proxy as a gateway, I think that TI should share the same box between I2ND and IoT but I will check with them and come back to you as soon as I have some news. BR Thierry De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Heijnen Henk Envoy? : jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:17 ? : Miguel Carrillo Cc : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Miguel, Of course, I've already sent (almost) the same email to Cloud and I2ND (In I2ND, TI is developing something on the Cloud Proxy and I'm sure they'll get boxes). Thanks for your feedback Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3150.F98068D0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3150.F98068D0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:14 To: Heijnen Henk Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Dear Henk, This is very good news and most welcome. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. Silly question. If I am right, they are asking for contributions and ideas in the context of the Live Demo. My info is that WP coordinates their demo (in your case, there are 2 WPs at stake). I wonder if any of the 2 WPs (or both) are including this in their part of the demo. If so, I guess that one or two of the boxes should go to this. Just wondering ... If you think that this makes sense, I would suggest a check with Pier and Alex as well. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 15:54, Heijnen Henk escribi?: Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE3150.F98068D0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3150.F98068D0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From thierry.nagellen at orange.com Thu Apr 4 16:45:14 2013 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com (thierry.nagellen at orange.com) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 14:45:14 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes In-Reply-To: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C794634B@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> References: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C7946321@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <9635_1365085371_515D8CBB_9635_1548_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CCD38@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C794634B@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Message-ID: <9641_1365086715_515D91FB_9641_8084_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CDDE5@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Many partners have some GEs at the gateway level, TI has a Protocol adapter but Orange or Atos have an implementation of the Data Handling GE so I am going to check with my developers tomorrow if we ask for one to test it also. But anyway, it is good news to have a physical box/gateway available :) BR Thierry De : Heijnen Henk [mailto:henk.heijnen at technicolor.com] Envoy? : jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:25 ? : NAGELLEN Thierry OLNC/OLPS; Miguel Carrillo Cc : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu; Gallo Secondo; Garino Pierangelo Objet : RE: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Thierry, Thanks! In fact, I was relying on TI to intermediate between I2ND & IoT. I guess it'll be better for IoT to get one box (who is developing the "IoT gateway"?) Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image003.jpg at 01CAA051.86578C00] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3153.C73BBA70] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: thierry.nagellen at orange.com [mailto:thierry.nagellen at orange.com] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:23 To: Heijnen Henk; Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: RE: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Hi Henk Because IoT expect also to use Cloud Proxy as a gateway, I think that TI should share the same box between I2ND and IoT but I will check with them and come back to you as soon as I have some news. BR Thierry De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Heijnen Henk Envoy? : jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:17 ? : Miguel Carrillo Cc : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Miguel, Of course, I've already sent (almost) the same email to Cloud and I2ND (In I2ND, TI is developing something on the Cloud Proxy and I'm sure they'll get boxes). Thanks for your feedback Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image003.jpg at 01CAA051.86578C00] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3153.C73BBA70] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:14 To: Heijnen Henk Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Dear Henk, This is very good news and most welcome. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. Silly question. If I am right, they are asking for contributions and ideas in the context of the Live Demo. My info is that WP coordinates their demo (in your case, there are 2 WPs at stake). I wonder if any of the 2 WPs (or both) are including this in their part of the demo. If so, I guess that one or two of the boxes should go to this. Just wondering ... If you think that this makes sense, I would suggest a check with Pier and Alex as well. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 15:54, Heijnen Henk escribi?: Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image003.jpg at 01CAA051.86578C00] [cid:image002.png at 01CE3153.C73BBA70] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Thu Apr 4 17:50:09 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:50:09 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes In-Reply-To: <9635_1365085371_515D8CBB_9635_1548_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CCD38@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79462AC@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <515D8ABF.3090700@tid.es> <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C7946321@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> <9635_1365085371_515D8CBB_9635_1548_1_976A65C5A08ADF49B9A8523F7F81925C0CCD38@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Message-ID: Hi Henk and All, very good news thanks! Indeed from I2ND perspective this is for sure a very strong item to let us join the activity with IoT chapter, particularly here at TI as Thierry pointed out. We'll organize this asap. BR Pier Da: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di thierry.nagellen at orange.com Inviato: gioved? 4 aprile 2013 16:23 A: Heijnen Henk; Miguel Carrillo Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Hi Henk Because IoT expect also to use Cloud Proxy as a gateway, I think that TI should share the same box between I2ND and IoT but I will check with them and come back to you as soon as I have some news. BR Thierry De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Heijnen Henk Envoy? : jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:17 ? : Miguel Carrillo Cc : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Miguel, Of course, I've already sent (almost) the same email to Cloud and I2ND (In I2ND, TI is developing something on the Cloud Proxy and I'm sure they'll get boxes). Thanks for your feedback Regards H Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE315C.D995ABA0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE315C.D995ABA0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 From: Miguel Carrillo [mailto:mcp at tid.es] Sent: jeudi 4 avril 2013 16:14 To: Heijnen Henk Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Availability of Cloud Proxy boxes Dear Henk, This is very good news and most welcome. Thank you very much for taking the trouble. Silly question. If I am right, they are asking for contributions and ideas in the context of the Live Demo. My info is that WP coordinates their demo (in your case, there are 2 WPs at stake). I wonder if any of the 2 WPs (or both) are including this in their part of the demo. If so, I guess that one or two of the boxes should go to this. Just wondering ... If you think that this makes sense, I would suggest a check with Pier and Alex as well. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 15:54, Heijnen Henk escribi?: Dear partners, I'm glad to announce that the Cloud Proxy boxes will be available at the end of April (Beta version). Could you let me know if we need boxes for the testbed infrastructure ? The boxes are modified commercial products (based on the TI CuboVision boxes actually ;-)) and will include the last version of our IaaS Cloud Proxy SW. They will be updatable (for Release 2.3.3 and Release 3.x) and can be installed in "normal" users premises (CE-certified). We can deliver the boxes for free to selected FI-WARE partners (assuming they have a real usage). We can also lend some boxes for the partners that only want to do some experimentations. I have only ~15 available boxes. If we need more, I'll have to sell them at a cost. Regards Henk Henk HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects [cid:image001.jpg at 01CE315C.D995ABA0] [cid:image002.png at 01CE315C.D995ABA0] Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: +33 2 99 27 33 08 - GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. 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. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]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: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16662 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2226 bytes Desc: image002.png 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: From manieri at eng.it Mon Apr 8 13:44:45 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:44:45 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> Message-ID: <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> Dear Juanjo, sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested info from me was expected. I was not aware about. Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? An initial agreeement about task description and effort allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you want to postpone the decision. I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. best, A. Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: > Dear Andrea, > > I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who > just showed me the latest internal messages with him. > > We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was > the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you > decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we > are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other > hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding > goes to one coordination level or the other. > > Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. We > perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with Arian > and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy and this > is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution now. > > Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find > a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 MM > under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep > everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if > they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I > guess that he will help. > > So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM > and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one > moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. > > If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer > would be appreciated. > > Best regards > > Miguel > El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >> Dear Miguel, >> >> as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget with >> no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the budget >> is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. >> >> That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into >> an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. >> >> I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in >> other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its >> budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. >> >> Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable >> agreement, at least from ENG perspective. >> >> I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let >> Javier finalise the budget. >> >> Later on we could address all the other missing details. >> >> Best regards, >> A >> point is that we cannot >> >> Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>> Dear Andrea, >>> >>> I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to >>> my info. >>> >>> No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current >>> situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week >>> apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can >>> imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a >>> bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo >>> or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I >>> have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all >>> these years and when you are around I try not to create more >>> problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a >>> reason why. >>> >>> But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in >>> this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this >>> resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I >>> stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the >>> excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe >>> that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. >>> When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last >>> day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share >>> as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also had >>> first understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. >>> So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was >>> being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to >>> help and not to add trouble. >>> >>> Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday >>> (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is >>> not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - >>> I did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I >>> needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess >>> and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. >>> >>> Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It >>> is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are >>> discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we >>> were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are >>> many WPs and many things to deal with) >>> >>> Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to >>> close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for >>> everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the >>> info does not flow well. >>> >>> I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your >>> responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if >>> you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has >>> coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it >>> get sometimes. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>>> Dear Javier, >>>> >>>> please find enclosed the final version that include the missing >>>> shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID >>>> role as sent by Miguel yesterday. >>>> >>>> With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo >>>> has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort >>>> should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, >>>> then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the >>>> effort/funding of EAB. >>>> >>>> Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> A. >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Andrea, I need your help again. >>>>> >>>>> 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to >>>>> E-IIS. >>>>> >>>>> If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted >>>>> I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each >>>>> involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of >>>>> Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to >>>>> wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. >>>>> >>>>> Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. >>>>> >>>>> 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel >>>>> with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice >>>>> that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. >>>>> >>>>> 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. >>>>> >>>>> So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 >>>>> according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit >>>>> version in order to avoid misunderstandings? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>>>> >>>>> BR >>>>> >>>>> Javier. >>>>> >>>>> *De:*Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] >>>>> *Enviado el:* mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 >>>>> *Para:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE >>>>> HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO >>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT >>>>> of new GPF) - errata corrige bis >>>>> >>>>> Dear Javier, >>>>> >>>>> sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). >>>>> >>>>> Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. >>>>> >>>>> Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left >>>>> by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. >>>>> >>>>> sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> A. >>>>> Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Javier, >>>>> >>>>> please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW >>>>> description. Please consider to use this one. >>>>> >>>>> Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved >>>>> in the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> A. >>>>> p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to >>>>> ENG is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please >>>>> consider to update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not >>>>> been able to sign it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the >>>>> spreadsheet with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank >>>>> you very much for all the received comments) >>>>> >>>>> I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the >>>>> draft of the new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please >>>>> don't sign it until we have delivered the final version. >>>>> >>>>> _Please confirm you agree with both documents._ >>>>> >>>>> Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW >>>>> from the WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll >>>>> send you the updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be >>>>> tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>>>> >>>>> BR >>>>> >>>>> Javier. >>>>> >>>>> firma correo jdps >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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-administrative mailing list >>>>> >>>>> Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>> >>> e-mail:mcp at tid.es >>> >>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>> >>> 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 >> > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N > _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) > Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 > > e-mail:mcp at tid.es > > Follow FI-WARE on the net > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 19427 bytes Desc: not available URL: From manieri at eng.it Mon Apr 8 14:16:06 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:16:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> Message-ID: <5162B506.8020803@eng.it> Dear Juanjo, Javier, this is the v2.4 which correct the typos related to THALES, TI and FT and reinclude the 10.6 about OIL as agreed with Miguel. Wrt the effort I've splitted the 11 MM of EAB almost in two (6 to TID and 5 to ENG), similarly it should be done for the funding (as Javier already knows, in order to reallocate all the costs/funding available the effort should be recalculated with partners actual costs (i.e. for ENG should be 8MM). Hope this clarify all about the reallocation made in WP10. Please let me know how you want to procede. cheers A. Il 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: > Dear Juanjo, > > sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested > info from me was expected. I was not aware about. > > Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB > effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? > > An initial agreeement about task description and effort > allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the > email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you want > to postpone the decision. > > I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send an > amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to insert > back the 10.6 or leave it out. > > best, > > A. > > > Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >> Dear Andrea, >> >> I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who >> just showed me the latest internal messages with him. >> >> We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was >> the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you >> decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we >> are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other >> hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding >> goes to one coordination level or the other. >> >> Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. >> We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with >> Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy >> and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution >> now. >> >> Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find >> a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 >> MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep >> everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if >> they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I >> guess that he will help. >> >> So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM >> and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one >> moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. >> >> If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer >> would be appreciated. >> >> Best regards >> >> Miguel >> El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>> Dear Miguel, >>> >>> as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget >>> with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the >>> budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. >>> >>> That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into >>> an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. >>> >>> I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in >>> other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its >>> budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. >>> >>> Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable >>> agreement, at least from ENG perspective. >>> >>> I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let >>> Javier finalise the budget. >>> >>> Later on we could address all the other missing details. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> A >>> point is that we cannot >>> >>> Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>>> Dear Andrea, >>>> >>>> I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to >>>> my info. >>>> >>>> No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current >>>> situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week >>>> apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can >>>> imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a >>>> bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo >>>> or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I >>>> have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all >>>> these years and when you are around I try not to create more >>>> problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a >>>> reason why. >>>> >>>> But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in >>>> this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands >>>> this resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails >>>> where I stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with >>>> the excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I >>>> believe that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed >>>> now. When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the >>>> last day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our >>>> share as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also >>>> had first understood that the OIL task was also for another >>>> amendment. So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday >>>> that this was being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I >>>> simply tried to help and not to add trouble. >>>> >>>> Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly >>>> yesterday (apart from other factors that I will not mention, >>>> calculating MM is not part of my normal duties and this was a bit >>>> unexpected for me - I did not have the time to pass it to the right >>>> section, but I needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was >>>> forced to guess and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now >>>> what happened. >>>> >>>> Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. >>>> It is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are >>>> discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage >>>> we were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there >>>> are many WPs and many things to deal with) >>>> >>>> Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to >>>> close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for >>>> everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the >>>> info does not flow well. >>>> >>>> I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your >>>> responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if >>>> you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has >>>> coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it >>>> get sometimes. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Miguel >>>> >>>> El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>>>> Dear Javier, >>>>> >>>>> please find enclosed the final version that include the missing >>>>> shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID >>>>> role as sent by Miguel yesterday. >>>>> >>>>> With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo >>>>> has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such >>>>> effort should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the >>>>> OIL activities. >>>>> >>>>> If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, >>>>> then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the >>>>> effort/funding of EAB. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, >>>>> >>>>> best, >>>>> >>>>> A. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Andrea, I need your help again. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to >>>>>> E-IIS. >>>>>> >>>>>> If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be >>>>>> splitted I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred >>>>>> to each involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the >>>>>> approval of Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then >>>>>> we?ll have to wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel >>>>>> with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice >>>>>> that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 >>>>>> according above. Could you please rename the document with a >>>>>> digit version in order to avoid misunderstandings? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>>>>> >>>>>> BR >>>>>> >>>>>> Javier. >>>>>> >>>>>> *De:*Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] >>>>>> *Enviado el:* mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 >>>>>> *Para:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE >>>>>> HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO >>>>>> *Asunto:* Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT >>>>>> of new GPF) - errata corrige bis >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Javier, >>>>>> >>>>>> sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left >>>>>> by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. >>>>>> >>>>>> sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>> A. >>>>>> Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Javier, >>>>>> >>>>>> please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW >>>>>> description. Please consider to use this one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Take into account also that TID was the only partner, >>>>>> involved in the WP, that have not provided yet the role >>>>>> description. >>>>>> >>>>>> best, >>>>>> >>>>>> A. >>>>>> p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to >>>>>> ENG is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please >>>>>> consider to update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not >>>>>> been able to sign it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the >>>>>> spreadsheet with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank >>>>>> you very much for all the received comments) >>>>>> >>>>>> I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the >>>>>> draft of the new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. >>>>>> Please don't sign it until we have delivered the final >>>>>> version. >>>>>> >>>>>> _Please confirm you agree with both documents._ >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the >>>>>> DoW from the WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, >>>>>> I'll send you the updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it >>>>>> will be tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>>>>> >>>>>> BR >>>>>> >>>>>> Javier. >>>>>> >>>>>> firma correo jdps >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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-administrative mailing list >>>>>> >>>>>> Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >>>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>>> >>>> e-mail:mcp at tid.es >>>> >>>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >> >> e-mail:mcp at tid.es >> >> Follow FI-WARE on the net >> >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 19427 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE effort - WP10 v2.4.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 26112 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FI-WARE-DoW-Amendment4 - WP10 v2.4.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 88334 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Apr 8 14:34:13 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:34:13 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] D10.3.2 Integration plan Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66460FE1082@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, chapters begin to ask me on how WP10 is approaching the "Integration plan" for V2 - how do you plan to have this in V2? Same procedure as in V1? Where to prepare the initial version or would we directly work on fi-ware-review? Thanks for letting me know, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Mon Apr 8 14:51:45 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:51:45 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] PHC today Message-ID: <5162BD61.6030707@nsn.com> Hi, are we going to have a PhC today? Br, Loci -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: From henk.heijnen at technicolor.com Mon Apr 8 16:35:43 2013 From: henk.heijnen at technicolor.com (Heijnen Henk) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:35:43 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] PHC today In-Reply-To: <5162BD61.6030707@nsn.com> References: <5162BD61.6030707@nsn.com> Message-ID: <189C15C1ADF61544BD5A11DCE7D5C50002C79B116C@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com> Is it @ 16:30 ??? (no one on line :-( Henk? HEIJNEN Manager, Cooperative Projects Research & Innovation Funded & Cooperative Programs 975 avenue des champs blancs - CS 17616 35576 Cesson-S?vign? cedex - FRANCE T?l: ?+33 2 99 27 33 08?- GSM: +33 6 72 39 26 24 - BU4/114 -----Original Message----- From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Lorant Nemeth Sent: lundi 8 avril 2013 14:52 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] PHC today Hi, are we going to have a PhC today? Br, Loci -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed From mcp at tid.es Mon Apr 8 19:22:04 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> Message-ID: <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> Dear Andrea, You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to the other partners as orderly as we can: What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already consensuated with you) - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this goes to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. TID will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending amendment 4 to make sure that there are no further iterations - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in this WP10 amendment. - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, when and how will address this topic. What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest to later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in our discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement similar to this but let us see. As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of amendment 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted when talking between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not fit in the DoW like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, after 3 amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, we need to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to reinclude T10.6 in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment 5), it would stall the whole amendment if we do it now. We will report back when we get an answer. Best regards, Miguel El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Juanjo, sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested info from me was expected. I was not aware about. Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? An initial agreeement about task description and effort allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you want to postpone the decision. I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. best, A. Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who just showed me the latest internal messages with him. We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding goes to one coordination level or the other. Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution now. Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I guess that he will help. So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer would be appreciated. Best regards Miguel El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Miguel, as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable agreement, at least from ENG perspective. I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let Javier finalise the budget. Later on we could address all the other missing details. Best regards, A point is that we cannot Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to my info. No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all these years and when you are around I try not to create more problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a reason why. But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also had first understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to help and not to add trouble. Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - I did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are many WPs and many things to deal with) Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the info does not flow well. I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it get sometimes. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Javier, please find enclosed the final version that include the missing shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID role as sent by Miguel yesterday. With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL activities. If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the effort/funding of EAB. Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, best, A. Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I need your help again. 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to E-IIS. If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit version in order to avoid misunderstandings? Thank you very much for your contribution and support. BR Javier. De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of new GPF) - errata corrige bis Dear Javier, sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. sincerely, A. Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: Dear Javier, please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW description. Please consider to use this one. Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. best, A. p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all the received comments) I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until we have delivered the final version. Please confirm you agree with both documents. Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. Thank you very much for your contribution and support. BR Javier. [firma correo jdps] ________________________________ 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-administrative mailing list Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative ________________________________ 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrea.manieri at eng.it Mon Apr 8 20:40:33 2013 From: Andrea.manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 18:40:33 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> Message-ID: <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> Dear Miguel, Thanks for clarifying further. A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That didn't include the new task as agreed. A Andrea Manieri -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Carrillo Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 To: Andrea Manieri Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; 'Corte Piero'; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) Dear Andrea, You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to the other partners as orderly as we can: What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already consensuated with you) - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this goes to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. TID will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending amendment 4 to make sure that there are no further iterations - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in this WP10 amendment. - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, when and how will address this topic. What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest to later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in our discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement similar to this but let us see. As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of amendment 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted when talking between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not fit in the DoW like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, after 3 amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, we need to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to reinclude T10.6 in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment 5), it would stall the whole amendment if we do it now. We will report back when we get an answer. Best regards, Miguel El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Juanjo, sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested info from me was expected. I was not aware about. Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? An initial agreeement about task description and effort allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you want to postpone the decision. I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. best, A. Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who just showed me the latest internal messages with him. We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding goes to one coordination level or the other. Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution now. Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I guess that he will help. So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer would be appreciated. Best regards Miguel El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Miguel, as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable agreement, at least from ENG perspective. I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let Javier finalise the budget. Later on we could address all the other missing details. Best regards, A point is that we cannot Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to my info. No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all these years and when you are around I try not to create more problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a reason why. But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also had first understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to help and not to add trouble. Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - I did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are many WPs and many things to deal with) Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the info does not flow well. I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it get sometimes. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Javier, please find enclosed the final version that include the missing shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID role as sent by Miguel yesterday. With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL activities. If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the effort/funding of EAB. Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, best, A. Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I need your help again. 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to E-IIS. If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit version in order to avoid misunderstandings? Thank you very much for your contribution and support. BR Javier. De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of new GPF) - errata corrige bis Dear Javier, sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. sincerely, A. Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: Dear Javier, please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW description. Please consider to use this one. Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. best, A. p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all the received comments) I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until we have delivered the final version. Please confirm you agree with both documents. Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. Thank you very much for your contribution and support. BR Javier. [firma correo jdps] ________________________________ 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-administrative mailing list Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative ________________________________ 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 From mcp at tid.es Tue Apr 9 09:36:15 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:36:15 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <5163C4EF.4050106@tid.es> Dear Andrea, If you can please be more explicit. I am not in that call nor are the rest of the testbed list that you are CCing. BR Miguel El 08/04/2013 20:40, Andrea Manieri escribi?: > Dear Miguel, > Thanks for clarifying further. > > A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That didn't include the new task as agreed. > > A > > > Andrea Manieri > > -----Original Message----- > From: Miguel Carrillo > Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 > To: Andrea Manieri > Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; 'Corte Piero'; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > Subject: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) > > Dear Andrea, > > You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to the other partners as orderly as we can: > > What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already consensuated with you) > - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this goes to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. TID will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending amendment 4 to make sure that there are no further iterations > - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in this WP10 amendment. > - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, when and how will address this topic. > What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) > - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest to later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 > - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in our discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... > In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement similar to this but let us see. > > As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of amendment 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted when talking between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not fit in the DoW like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, after 3 amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, we need to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to reinclude T10.6 in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment 5), it would stall the whole amendment if we do it now. > > We will report back when we get an answer. > > Best regards, > > Miguel > > > El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: > Dear Juanjo, > > sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested info from me was expected. I was not aware about. > > Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? > > An initial agreeement about task description and effort allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you want to postpone the decision. > > I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. > > best, > > A. > > > Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: > Dear Andrea, > > I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who just showed me the latest internal messages with him. > > We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding goes to one coordination level or the other. > > Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution now. > > Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I guess that he will help. > > So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. > > If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer would be appreciated. > > Best regards > > Miguel > El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: > Dear Miguel, > > as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. > > That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. > > I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. > > Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable agreement, at least from ENG perspective. > > I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let Javier finalise the budget. > > Later on we could address all the other missing details. > > Best regards, > A > point is that we cannot > > Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: > Dear Andrea, > > I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to my info. > > No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all these years and when you are around I try not to create more problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a reason why. > > But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also had first understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to help and not to add trouble. > > Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - I did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. > > Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are many WPs and many things to deal with) > > Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the info does not flow well. > > I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it get sometimes. > > Best regards, > > Miguel > > El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: > Dear Javier, > > please find enclosed the final version that include the missing shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID role as sent by Miguel yesterday. > > With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL activities. > > If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the effort/funding of EAB. > > Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, > > best, > > A. > > > Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: > Dear Andrea, I need your help again. > > 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to E-IIS. > > If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. > Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. > > 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. > > 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. > > So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit version in order to avoid misunderstandings? > > Thank you very much for your contribution and support. > > BR > Javier. > > > > > > > De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] > Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 > Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO > Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of new GPF) - errata corrige bis > > Dear Javier, > > sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). > > Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. > > Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. > > sincerely, > > A. > Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: > Dear Javier, > > please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW description. Please consider to use this one. > > Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. > > best, > > A. > p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. > > > > Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: > Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all the received comments) > > I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until we have delivered the final version. > > Please confirm you agree with both documents. > > Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. > > Thank you very much for your contribution and support. > > BR > Javier. > > > [firma correo jdps] > > > ________________________________ > > 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-administrative mailing list > > Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu > > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N > _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) > Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 > > e-mail: mcp at tid.es > > Follow FI-WARE on the net > > 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 > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N > _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) > Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 > > e-mail: mcp at tid.es > > Follow FI-WARE on the net > > 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 > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N > _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) > Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 > > e-mail: mcp at tid.es > > Follow FI-WARE on the net > > 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 > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 From manieri at eng.it Tue Apr 9 10:03:00 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:03:00 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5163C4EF.4050106@tid.es> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> <5163C4EF.4050106@tid.es> Message-ID: <5163CB34.3080803@eng.it> Dear Miguel, I asked Juanjo to be more explicit about his remarks in the call. I was not either, and I understood from the Stefano feedback that he was willing to have the 10.6 included in this amendment. A final word from Juanjo is welcome and extremely useful. Juanjo, do you or not want to include the new task in this amendment as proposed by me/ENG? Do you or not agree to reserve the 11MM effort/83K funding to TID instead of ENG for further redistribution later on? Best, A. Il 09/04/2013 09:36, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: > Dear Andrea, > > If you can please be more explicit. I am not in that call nor are the > rest of the testbed list that you are CCing. > > BR > > Miguel > > El 08/04/2013 20:40, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >> Dear Miguel, >> Thanks for clarifying further. >> >> A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today >> call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That >> didn't include the new task as agreed. >> >> A >> >> >> Andrea Manieri >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Miguel Carrillo >> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 >> To: Andrea Manieri >> Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JAVIER DE PEDRO >> SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; >> 'Corte Piero'; >> fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >> Subject: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel >> and word) >> >> Dear Andrea, >> >> You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to >> the other partners as orderly as we can: >> >> What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already >> consensuated with you) >> - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID >> for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to >> the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this goes >> to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. TID >> will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending amendment 4 >> to make sure that there are no further iterations >> - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in >> this WP10 amendment. >> - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, >> when and how will address this topic. >> What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) >> - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest to >> later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 >> - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we >> were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in our >> discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... >> In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of >> amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to >> whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of >> Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement similar >> to this but let us see. >> >> As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: >> [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, >> excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of amendment >> 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted when talking >> between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not fit in the DoW >> like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, after 3 >> amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, we need >> to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to reinclude T10.6 >> in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment 5), it would stall >> the whole amendment if we do it now. >> >> We will report back when we get an answer. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Miguel >> >> >> El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >> Dear Juanjo, >> >> sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested >> info from me was expected. I was not aware about. >> >> Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB >> effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? >> >> An initial agreeement about task description and effort >> allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the >> email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you >> want to postpone the decision. >> >> I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send >> an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to >> insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. >> >> best, >> >> A. >> >> >> Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >> Dear Andrea, >> >> I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who >> just showed me the latest internal messages with him. >> >> We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was >> the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you >> decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we >> are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other >> hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding >> goes to one coordination level or the other. >> >> Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. >> We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with >> Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy >> and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution >> now. >> >> Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find >> a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 >> MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep >> everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if >> they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I >> guess that he will help. >> >> So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM >> and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one >> moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. >> >> If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer >> would be appreciated. >> >> Best regards >> >> Miguel >> El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >> Dear Miguel, >> >> as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget with >> no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the budget >> is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. >> >> That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into >> an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. >> >> I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in >> other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its >> budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. >> >> Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable >> agreement, at least from ENG perspective. >> >> I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let >> Javier finalise the budget. >> >> Later on we could address all the other missing details. >> >> Best regards, >> A >> point is that we cannot >> >> Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >> Dear Andrea, >> >> I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to >> my info. >> >> No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current >> situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week >> apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can >> imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a >> bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo or >> there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I have a >> certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all these years >> and when you are around I try not to create more problems than >> necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a reason why. >> >> But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in >> this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this >> resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I >> stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the excel >> file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe that >> there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. When I >> heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last day, then >> I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share as we are >> doing part of the work. In this context, I also had first >> understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. So >> again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was >> being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to >> help and not to add trouble. >> >> Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday >> (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is >> not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - I >> did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I needed >> to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess and >> made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. >> >> Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It >> is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are >> discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we >> were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are >> many WPs and many things to deal with) >> >> Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to >> close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for >> everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the info >> does not flow well. >> >> I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your >> responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if >> you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has >> coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it >> get sometimes. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Miguel >> >> El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >> Dear Javier, >> >> please find enclosed the final version that include the missing shift >> in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID role as >> sent by Miguel yesterday. >> >> With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo >> has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort >> should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL activities. >> >> If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, then >> ENG can afford all the work and will take all the effort/funding of EAB. >> >> Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, >> >> best, >> >> A. >> >> >> Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >> Dear Andrea, I need your help again. >> >> 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to E-IIS. >> >> If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted I >> need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each involved >> partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of Juanjo Hierro. >> If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to wait for the next >> amendment to split these 11 PM. >> Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. >> >> 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel with >> the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice that you >> have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. >> >> 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. >> >> So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 >> according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit >> version in order to avoid misunderstandings? >> >> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >> >> BR >> Javier. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] >> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 >> Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE HIERRO >> SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO >> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of >> new GPF) - errata corrige bis >> >> Dear Javier, >> >> sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). >> >> Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. >> >> Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left by >> EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. >> >> sincerely, >> >> A. >> Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: >> Dear Javier, >> >> please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW description. >> Please consider to use this one. >> >> Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in the >> WP, that have not provided yet the role description. >> >> best, >> >> A. >> p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG is >> not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to update >> NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. >> >> >> >> Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >> Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet >> with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all the >> received comments) >> >> I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the >> new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until we >> have delivered the final version. >> >> Please confirm you agree with both documents. >> >> Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the >> WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the >> updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. >> >> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >> >> BR >> Javier. >> >> >> [firma correo jdps] >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> 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-administrative mailing list >> >> Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu >> >> >> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >> >> e-mail: >> mcp at tid.es >> >> Follow FI-WARE on the net >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >> >> e-mail: >> mcp at tid.es >> >> Follow FI-WARE on the net >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >> >> e-mail: >> mcp at tid.es >> >> Follow FI-WARE on the net >> >> 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 >> > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco > _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica > _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 > _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N > _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) > Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 > > e-mail: mcp at tid.es > > Follow FI-WARE on the net > > 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-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > From mcp at tid.es Tue Apr 9 10:06:57 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 10:06:57 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5163CB34.3080803@eng.it> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> <5163C4EF.4050106@tid.es> <5163CB34.3080803@eng.it> Message-ID: <5163CC21.20605@tid.es> Dear Andrea, This is a bit puzzling. I checked my previous message with Juanjo before pressing "send"! Best regards, Miguel El 09/04/2013 10:03, Andrea Manieri escribi?: > Dear Miguel, > > I asked Juanjo to be more explicit about his remarks in the call. > > I was not either, and I understood from the Stefano feedback that he > was willing to have the 10.6 included in this amendment. > > A final word from Juanjo is welcome and extremely useful. > > Juanjo, do you or not want to include the new task in this amendment > as proposed by me/ENG? > Do you or not agree to reserve the 11MM effort/83K funding to TID > instead of ENG for further redistribution later on? > > Best, > > A. > > Il 09/04/2013 09:36, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >> Dear Andrea, >> >> If you can please be more explicit. I am not in that call nor are the >> rest of the testbed list that you are CCing. >> >> BR >> >> Miguel >> >> El 08/04/2013 20:40, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>> Dear Miguel, >>> Thanks for clarifying further. >>> >>> A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today >>> call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That >>> didn't include the new task as agreed. >>> >>> A >>> >>> >>> Andrea Manieri >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Miguel Carrillo >>> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 >>> To: Andrea Manieri >>> Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JAVIER DE PEDRO >>> SANCHEZ; stefano de >>> panfilis; 'Corte >>> Piero'; >>> fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >>> Subject: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, >>> excel and word) >>> >>> Dear Andrea, >>> >>> You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to >>> the other partners as orderly as we can: >>> >>> What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already >>> consensuated with you) >>> - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID >>> for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to >>> the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this goes >>> to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. TID >>> will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending amendment >>> 4 to make sure that there are no further iterations >>> - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in >>> this WP10 amendment. >>> - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, >>> when and how will address this topic. >>> What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) >>> - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest to >>> later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 >>> - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we >>> were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in >>> our discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... >>> In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of >>> amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to >>> whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of >>> Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement similar >>> to this but let us see. >>> >>> As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: >>> [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, >>> excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of >>> amendment 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted >>> when talking between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not >>> fit in the DoW like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, >>> after 3 amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, >>> we need to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to >>> reinclude T10.6 in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment >>> 5), it would stall the whole amendment if we do it now. >>> >>> We will report back when we get an answer. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> >>> El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>> Dear Juanjo, >>> >>> sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested >>> info from me was expected. I was not aware about. >>> >>> Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the >>> EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? >>> >>> An initial agreeement about task description and effort >>> allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from >>> the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and >>> you want to postpone the decision. >>> >>> I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send >>> an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to >>> insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> A. >>> >>> >>> Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>> Dear Andrea, >>> >>> I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who >>> just showed me the latest internal messages with him. >>> >>> We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was >>> the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If >>> you decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear >>> that we are acting against something agreed with more partners. On >>> the other hand I do not see that they should worry that much that >>> the funding goes to one coordination level or the other. >>> >>> Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. >>> We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with >>> Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy >>> and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a >>> distribution now. >>> >>> Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must >>> find a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting >>> the 11 MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later >>> would keep everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian >>> to see if they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that >>> is minor, I guess that he will help. >>> >>> So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the >>> MM and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least >>> one moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. >>> >>> If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick >>> answer would be appreciated. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Miguel >>> El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>> Dear Miguel, >>> >>> as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget >>> with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the >>> budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. >>> >>> That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into >>> an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. >>> >>> I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in >>> other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its >>> budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. >>> >>> Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable >>> agreement, at least from ENG perspective. >>> >>> I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let >>> Javier finalise the budget. >>> >>> Later on we could address all the other missing details. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> A >>> point is that we cannot >>> >>> Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>> Dear Andrea, >>> >>> I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to >>> my info. >>> >>> No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current >>> situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week >>> apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can >>> imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a >>> bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo >>> or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I >>> have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all >>> these years and when you are around I try not to create more >>> problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a >>> reason why. >>> >>> But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in >>> this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this >>> resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I >>> stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the >>> excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe >>> that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. >>> When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last >>> day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share >>> as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also had >>> first understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. >>> So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was >>> being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to >>> help and not to add trouble. >>> >>> Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday >>> (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is >>> not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - >>> I did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I >>> needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess >>> and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. >>> >>> Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It >>> is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are >>> discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we >>> were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are >>> many WPs and many things to deal with) >>> >>> Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to >>> close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for >>> everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the >>> info does not flow well. >>> >>> I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your >>> responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if >>> you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has >>> coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it >>> get sometimes. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>> Dear Javier, >>> >>> please find enclosed the final version that include the missing >>> shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID role >>> as sent by Miguel yesterday. >>> >>> With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo >>> has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort >>> should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL >>> activities. >>> >>> If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, then >>> ENG can afford all the work and will take all the effort/funding of >>> EAB. >>> >>> Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, >>> >>> best, >>> >>> A. >>> >>> >>> Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>> Dear Andrea, I need your help again. >>> >>> 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to >>> E-IIS. >>> >>> If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted I >>> need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each >>> involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of >>> Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to >>> wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. >>> Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. >>> >>> 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel >>> with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice >>> that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. >>> >>> 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. >>> >>> So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 >>> according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit >>> version in order to avoid misunderstandings? >>> >>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>> >>> BR >>> Javier. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] >>> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 >>> Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE HIERRO >>> SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO >>> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of >>> new GPF) - errata corrige bis >>> >>> Dear Javier, >>> >>> sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). >>> >>> Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. >>> >>> Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left by >>> EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. >>> >>> sincerely, >>> >>> A. >>> Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: >>> Dear Javier, >>> >>> please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW description. >>> Please consider to use this one. >>> >>> Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in >>> the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> A. >>> p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG is >>> not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to >>> update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>> Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet >>> with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all >>> the received comments) >>> >>> I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the >>> new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until we >>> have delivered the final version. >>> >>> Please confirm you agree with both documents. >>> >>> Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the >>> WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the >>> updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. >>> >>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>> >>> BR >>> Javier. >>> >>> >>> [firma correo jdps] >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> 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-administrative mailing list >>> >>> Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu >>> >>> >>> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>> >>> e-mail: >>> mcp at tid.es >>> >>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>> >>> e-mail: >>> mcp at tid.es >>> >>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>> >>> e-mail: >>> mcp at tid.es >>> >>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >> >> e-mail: mcp at tid.es >> >> Follow FI-WARE on the net >> >> 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-testbed mailing list >> Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed >> >> > > . > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 From jhierro at tid.es Tue Apr 9 11:39:14 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5163CB34.3080803@eng.it> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> <5163C4EF.4050106@tid.es> <5163CB34.3080803@eng.it> Message-ID: <5163E1C2.5050900@tid.es> Dear colleagues, You haven't provided an accurate description of what we discussed during the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall when you say: "A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That didn't include the new task as agreed. " :-) My point was that I was not aware about anything missed by Javier when he elaborated the draft DoW. In that respect, we all at TID understood that it was agreed not to include task 10.6 at this amendment of the DoW. That's why we became a bit puzzled with your demand to include task 10.6 as a must-have. Given the relevance you give to the inclusion of the description of the task, Miguel has proposed to me a solution that I believe that should work and I support: * We will include the description of the task but we will suppress the description of the role of partners, among other things because no agreement has been reached about the precise role of each partner. Instead of that, a paragraph will be added stating that the effort/funding for this task is allocated temporarily to TID but will be distributed later based on needs and priorities in this task * Only TID will appear assigned to task 10.6 with all the remaining funding from EAB (translated into PMs accordingly) We will double-check with Arian whether this solution is feasible (assignment of remaining funding to be distributed to the project coordinator). We believe it shouldn't be a problem but it is better to ask. 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) Coordinator and 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 On 09/04/13 10:03, Andrea Manieri wrote: Dear Miguel, I asked Juanjo to be more explicit about his remarks in the call. I was not either, and I understood from the Stefano feedback that he was willing to have the 10.6 included in this amendment. A final word from Juanjo is welcome and extremely useful. Juanjo, do you or not want to include the new task in this amendment as proposed by me/ENG? Do you or not agree to reserve the 11MM effort/83K funding to TID instead of ENG for further redistribution later on? Best, A. Il 09/04/2013 09:36, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, If you can please be more explicit. I am not in that call nor are the rest of the testbed list that you are CCing. BR Miguel El 08/04/2013 20:40, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Miguel, Thanks for clarifying further. A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That didn't include the new task as agreed. A Andrea Manieri -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Carrillo Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 To: Andrea Manieri Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; 'Corte Piero'; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) Dear Andrea, You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to the other partners as orderly as we can: What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already consensuated with you) - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this goes to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. TID will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending amendment 4 to make sure that there are no further iterations - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in this WP10 amendment. - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, when and how will address this topic. What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest to later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in our discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement similar to this but let us see. As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of amendment 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted when talking between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not fit in the DoW like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, after 3 amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, we need to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to reinclude T10.6 in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment 5), it would stall the whole amendment if we do it now. We will report back when we get an answer. Best regards, Miguel El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Juanjo, sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested info from me was expected. I was not aware about. Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? An initial agreeement about task description and effort allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and you want to postpone the decision. I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. best, A. Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who just showed me the latest internal messages with him. We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If you decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear that we are acting against something agreed with more partners. On the other hand I do not see that they should worry that much that the funding goes to one coordination level or the other. Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a distribution now. Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must find a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting the 11 MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later would keep everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to Arian to see if they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but that is minor, I guess that he will help. So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the MM and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least one moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick answer would be appreciated. Best regards Miguel El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Miguel, as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and funding. I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable agreement, at least from ENG perspective. I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then let Javier finalise the budget. Later on we could address all the other missing details. Best regards, A point is that we cannot Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to my info. No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all these years and when you are around I try not to create more problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a reason why. But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands this resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails where I stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with the excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I believe that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed now. When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the last day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our share as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also had first understood that the OIL task was also for another amendment. So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday that this was being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I simply tried to help and not to add trouble. Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly yesterday (apart from other factors that I will not mention, calculating MM is not part of my normal duties and this was a bit unexpected for me - I did not have the time to pass it to the right section, but I needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was forced to guess and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now what happened. Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. It is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage we were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there are many WPs and many things to deal with) Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the info does not flow well. I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it get sometimes. Best regards, Miguel El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: Dear Javier, please find enclosed the final version that include the missing shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID role as sent by Miguel yesterday. With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL activities. If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the effort/funding of EAB. Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, best, A. Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: Dear Andrea, I need your help again. 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to E-IIS. If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit version in order to avoid misunderstandings? Thank you very much for your contribution and support. BR Javier. De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of new GPF) - errata corrige bis Dear Javier, sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. sincerely, A. Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: Dear Javier, please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW description. Please consider to use this one. Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. best, A. p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all the received comments) I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until we have delivered the final version. Please confirm you agree with both documents. Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. Thank you very much for your contribution and support. BR Javier. [firma correo jdps] ________________________________ 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-administrative mailing list Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative ________________________________ 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed . ________________________________ 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: From manieri at eng.it Tue Apr 9 11:47:11 2013 From: manieri at eng.it (Andrea Manieri) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 11:47:11 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] R: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, excel and word) In-Reply-To: <5163E1C2.5050900@tid.es> References: <77A22C1085494D48B4018F06A40DB2C71C0AFD46@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <515D96D5.6070305@eng.it> <515DA3C0.6020401@tid.es> <515DA99F.4080007@eng.it> <515EA0D0.2020800@tid.es> <5162ADAD.9000701@eng.it> <5162FCBC.30008@tid.es> <1530499702-1365446431-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1027002614-@b15.c6.bise7.blackberry> <5163C4EF.4050106@tid.es> <5163CB34.3080803@eng.it> <5163E1C2.5050900@tid.es> Message-ID: <5163E39F.6040504@eng.it> Dear Juanjo, possibly there where too many threads in parallel. This may the cause for some confusion. Happy that we converge to the point. The proposed approach is safe from our side. Please check with Arian and if any issue will arise we could discuss in a dedicated call or next week in any break during the XiFi kick-off. Best, A. Il 09/04/2013 11:39, Juanjo Hierro ha scritto: > Dear colleagues, > > You haven't provided an accurate description of what we discussed > during the joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcall when you say: "A still > obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the today call, > related the last proposed text/effort distribution... That didn't > include the new task as agreed. " :-) > > My point was that I was not aware about anything missed by Javier > when he elaborated the draft DoW. In that respect, we all at TID > understood that it was agreed not to include task 10.6 at this > amendment of the DoW. That's why we became a bit puzzled with your > demand to include task 10.6 as a must-have. > > Given the relevance you give to the inclusion of the description of > the task, Miguel has proposed to me a solution that I believe that > should work and I support: > > * We will include the description of the task but we will suppress > the description of the role of partners, among other things > because no agreement has been reached about the precise role of > each partner. Instead of that, a paragraph will be added stating > that the effort/funding for this task is allocated temporarily to > TID but will be distributed later based on needs and priorities in > this task > * Only TID will appear assigned to task 10.6 with all the remaining > funding from EAB (translated into PMs accordingly) > > We will double-check with Arian whether this solution is feasible > (assignment of remaining funding to be distributed to the project > coordinator). We believe it shouldn't be a problem but it is better > to ask. > > 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) Coordinator > and 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 > On 09/04/13 10:03, Andrea Manieri wrote: >> Dear Miguel, >> >> I asked Juanjo to be more explicit about his remarks in the call. >> >> I was not either, and I understood from the Stefano feedback that he >> was willing to have the 10.6 included in this amendment. >> >> A final word from Juanjo is welcome and extremely useful. >> >> Juanjo, do you or not want to include the new task in this amendment >> as proposed by me/ENG? >> Do you or not agree to reserve the 11MM effort/83K funding to TID >> instead of ENG for further redistribution later on? >> >> Best, >> >> A. >> >> Il 09/04/2013 09:36, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>> Dear Andrea, >>> >>> If you can please be more explicit. I am not in that call nor are the >>> rest of the testbed list that you are CCing. >>> >>> BR >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> El 08/04/2013 20:40, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>>> Dear Miguel, >>>> Thanks for clarifying further. >>>> >>>> A still obscure item was those Juanjo complained about, in the >>>> today call, related the last proposed text/effort distribution... >>>> That didn't include the new task as agreed. >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrea Manieri >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Miguel Carrillo >>>> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:22:04 >>>> To: Andrea Manieri >>>> Cc: JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; JAVIER DE PEDRO >>>> SANCHEZ; stefano de >>>> panfilis; 'Corte >>>> Piero'; >>>> fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >>>> Subject: Re: FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, >>>> excel and word) >>>> >>>> Dear Andrea, >>>> >>>> You CC the whole WP10 so let us clarify to give them the context to >>>> the other partners as orderly as we can: >>>> >>>> What we will do in Amendment 4 (about to be closed & already >>>> consensuated with you) >>>> - EAB ramaining effort (11MM) and budget is fully trasfered to TID >>>> for the time being (we will try to provide the right explanation to >>>> the EC). I guess that the partners should not mind whether this >>>> goes to TID or ENG as long as is it a pool for future reallocation. >>>> TID will try to discuss it with Arian asap and before sending >>>> amendment 4 to make sure that there are no further iterations >>>> - The new task 10.6 description, related to OIL, is not included in >>>> this WP10 amendment. >>>> - A further discussion in the PCC/GA will be about addressing who, >>>> when and how will address this topic. >>>> What we will do in next amendments (to be discussed) >>>> - We have a draft of 10.6 (wording + contributors) but we suggest >>>> to later consensuate it with more calm in WP10 >>>> - The resource distribution is not feasible as we discussed it (we >>>> were forced to react too quickly and the rules that we applied in >>>> our discussion are not valid). I wish it was so easy... >>>> In any case and in summary, yes, we need to take out T10.6 of >>>> amendment 4 and save it for future amendments. This is subject to >>>> whatever surprises we may encounter when we manage to get hold of >>>> Arian. Our assumption is that we will come to an arrangement >>>> similar to this but let us see. >>>> >>>> As regards your message at 14:16 today with subject "Re: >>>> [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Amendment 4 - WP10 (new version required, >>>> excel and word)", it could be the basis for the contents of >>>> amendment 5 (maybe this is what you mean). But as we have insisted >>>> when talking between ourselves, the redistribution of work does not >>>> fit in the DoW like that. It is not our rules, it's Arian's rules, >>>> after 3 amendments we know. And we cannot discuss it at this point, >>>> we need to close Amendment 4. Important: I have not agreed to >>>> reinclude T10.6 in amendment 4 (we do agree to do it in amendment >>>> 5), it would stall the whole amendment if we do it now. >>>> >>>> We will report back when we get an answer. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Miguel >>>> >>>> >>>> El 08/04/2013 13:44, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>>> Dear Juanjo, >>>> >>>> sorry to not being able to join the call, especially when requested >>>> info from me was expected. I was not aware about. >>>> >>>> Anyhow, can you tell me what's exactly is your decision about the >>>> EAB effort and the new task 10.6 about OIL? >>>> >>>> An initial agreeement about task description and effort >>>> allocation/role was achieved among Miguel and myself. Then - from >>>> the email below - I understood that you didn't agreed to that and >>>> you want to postpone the decision. >>>> >>>> I'm checking the various typos spotted by Javier and will soon send >>>> an amended version of WP9 and 10. Please tell me if you want me to >>>> insert back the 10.6 or leave it out. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> A. >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 05/04/2013 12:00, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>>> Dear Andrea, >>>> >>>> I finally managed to talk to Juanjo and also to Javier de Pedro who >>>> just showed me the latest internal messages with him. >>>> >>>> We were initially working this way (all MM to Eng) because this was >>>> the agreement in the latest PCC and Eng was in favour as well. If >>>> you decide to change this it should not be so dramatic but I fear >>>> that we are acting against something agreed with more partners. On >>>> the other hand I do not see that they should worry that much that >>>> the funding goes to one coordination level or the other. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately the distribution of MM is not so simple as you think. >>>> We perfectly understand your view but after a few interactions with >>>> Arian and the EC in several amendments, the rules are not that easy >>>> and this is going to be endless if we start discussing a >>>> distribution now. >>>> >>>> Blocking the amendment for this alone would be unwise so we must >>>> find a solution that satisfies everyone. As it seems that putting >>>> the 11 MM under TID with the commitment of re-distributing later >>>> would keep everyone happy, we can try. I would need to talk to >>>> Arian to see if they do not object and how to fit it in the DoW but >>>> that is minor, I guess that he will help. >>>> >>>> So, in summary. Agreed that Eng is happy if we (TID) takes all the >>>> MM and resume the negotitation at a later stage? There is a least >>>> one moreone forthcoming amendment for the 2nd and 3rd Open calls. >>>> >>>> If you confirm I will try to see if the EC accepts it. A quick >>>> answer would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Miguel >>>> El 04/04/2013 18:26, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>>> Dear Miguel, >>>> >>>> as I told you the issues was to assign to ENG some effort/budget >>>> with no clear reference to any work. Saying that is for OIL and the >>>> budget is just parked to ENG funding is not feasible. >>>> >>>> That was the reason to asking you the hard job to quickly come into >>>> an agreement for both allocating activities/responsibility and >>>> funding. >>>> >>>> I also told you that if the activity was not clear - as usual in >>>> other cases - should be the coordinator that keep the money in its >>>> budget for further allocation, as you did with open calls. >>>> >>>> Back to the point, I think, at the end, we come to a suitable >>>> agreement, at least from ENG perspective. >>>> >>>> I kindly ask you to verify with Juanjo for his approval and then >>>> let Javier finalise the budget. >>>> >>>> Later on we could address all the other missing details. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> A >>>> point is that we cannot >>>> >>>> Il 04/04/2013 18:01, Miguel Carrillo ha scritto: >>>> Dear Andrea, >>>> >>>> I have to step in as Juanjo is under a lot of pressure according to >>>> my info. >>>> >>>> No. Juanjo has been unreachable these days due to the current >>>> situation (Arch week) and I haven't spoken to him since last week >>>> apart form a few seconds (and all about the Arch weeks, as you can >>>> imagine). When it was decided to change this the other day I was a >>>> bit surprised but I thought that it was somehow agreed with Juanjo >>>> or there was a reasonable rationale. I did not complain because I >>>> have a certain degree of mutual understanding with Eng after all >>>> these years and when you are around I try not to create more >>>> problems than necessary, I simply trusted you that there was a >>>> reason why. >>>> >>>> But this has to be clear. I never said that this had to be split in >>>> this amendment and was pretty happy with putting in Eng's hands >>>> this resources until the next one. I enclose one of the emails >>>> where I stated it. I also sent Andrea the message from Juanjo with >>>> the excel file distributing resources and tried to explain it. I >>>> believe that there is a misunderstanding here but this can be fixed >>>> now. When I heard that you wanted to split resources nearly in the >>>> last day, then I understandably needed to said that TID wanted our >>>> share as we are doing part of the work. In this context, I also >>>> had first understood that the OIL task was also for another >>>> amendment. So again, when Stefano showed me at the end of Monday >>>> that this was being added I thought that it was a bit rushed but I >>>> simply tried to help and not to add trouble. >>>> >>>> Maybe you understand now why I was not reacting so quickly >>>> yesterday (apart from other factors that I will not mention, >>>> calculating MM is not part of my normal duties and this was a bit >>>> unexpected for me - I did not have the time to pass it to the right >>>> section, but I needed to check internally the rates! In fact, I was >>>> forced to guess and made a mistake using an old rate). I know now >>>> what happened. >>>> >>>> Let us try to understand each other, this is simple if explained. >>>> It is not a matter or willing to contribute or not, what we are >>>> discussing is when to distribute the resources. And at this stage >>>> we were trying to simplify because this amendment is endless (there >>>> are many WPs and many things to deal with) >>>> >>>> Andrea, please do not see bad intentions, we are honestly trying to >>>> close things and to arrange everything in reasonable terms for >>>> everyone. It is simply that things go too fast and sometimes the >>>> info does not flow well. >>>> >>>> I understand that coordinating WP10 is not easy and that your >>>> responsibility is a bit heavy. But I would really appreciate it if >>>> you could try to be as flexible as you can to help Javier; Eng has >>>> coordinated things as complex as QualiPSo, you know how hard can it >>>> get sometimes. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Miguel >>>> >>>> El 04/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri escribi?: >>>> Dear Javier, >>>> >>>> please find enclosed the final version that include the missing >>>> shift in effort from TI (3) and rounded numbers (2) and the TID >>>> role as sent by Miguel yesterday. >>>> >>>> With respect the EAB effort/funding left, I'm assuming that Juanjo >>>> has been informed by MIguel. I understood from him that such effort >>>> should have been split among ENG and TID to finalise the OIL >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> If TID is not willing to contribute to the new task activities, >>>> then ENG can afford all the work and will take all the >>>> effort/funding of EAB. >>>> >>>> Thanks to Juanjo to clarify further, >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> A. >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 04/04/2013 15:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>>> Dear Andrea, I need your help again. >>>> >>>> 1.- So far today, the 11 PM from EAB-WP10 would be transferred to >>>> E-IIS. >>>> >>>> If these 11PM initially assigned to E-IIS are going to be splitted >>>> I need to know how many PM are going to be transferred to each >>>> involved partner in WP10, and of course I need the approval of >>>> Juanjo Hierro. If there is no a consensus yet, then we?ll have to >>>> wait for the next amendment to split these 11 PM. >>>> Please note that NEF doesn't admit decimals in PM's. >>>> >>>> 2.- The total effort in WP10 is 456 PM. Please review your excel >>>> with the distribution because there are 459.5 PMs. I have notice >>>> that you have added a new task. Maybe the problem is there. >>>> >>>> 3.- Pier is saying that his modifications are not integrate. >>>> >>>> So, I kindly ask you to send me another last version of WP10 >>>> according above. Could you please rename the document with a digit >>>> version in order to avoid misunderstandings? >>>> >>>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>>> >>>> BR >>>> Javier. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> De: Andrea Manieri [mailto:manieri at eng.it] >>>> Enviado el: mi?rcoles, 03 de abril de 2013 17:13 >>>> Para: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ; stefano de panfilis; JUAN JOSE >>>> HIERRO SUREDA; MIGUEL CARRILLO PACHECO >>>> Asunto: Re: [Fiware-administrative] FI-WARE: Amenmdnet 4 (DRAFT of >>>> new GPF) - errata corrige bis >>>> >>>> Dear Javier, >>>> >>>> sorry, but Miguel spotted a typo in effort splitting (thanks MIguel). >>>> >>>> Please find enclosed the (hopefully) final version of WP10. >>>> >>>> Wrt funding splitting, there's an agreement to split the 83k left >>>> by EAB as 40/43 among ENG and TID, roghly 7,5/7 MM each. >>>> >>>> sincerely, >>>> >>>> A. >>>> Il 03/04/2013 17:05, Andrea Manieri ha scritto: >>>> Dear Javier, >>>> >>>> please find enclosed an updated version of the WP10 DoW >>>> description. Please consider to use this one. >>>> >>>> Take into account also that TID was the only partner, involved in >>>> the WP, that have not provided yet the role description. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> A. >>>> p.s. I recall that the allocation of the whole EAB MM left to ENG >>>> is not acceptable nor by TID (Miguel) and ENG. Please consider to >>>> update NEF accordingly, otherwise ENG will not been able to sign it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Il 03/04/2013 16:48, JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ ha scritto: >>>> Dear all, please find enclosed the last version of the spreadsheet >>>> with the changes of the amendment 4. (Thank you very much for all >>>> the received comments) >>>> >>>> I have updated these data on NEF, so I've attached the draft of the >>>> new GPF to be reviewed for all of you. Please don't sign it until >>>> we have delivered the final version. >>>> >>>> Please confirm you agree with both documents. >>>> >>>> Note: We are receiving the latest modifications of the DoW from the >>>> WPL, as soon as I have received all of them, I'll send you the >>>> updated DoW to be reviewed. I hope it will be tomorrow. >>>> >>>> Thank you very much for your contribution and support. >>>> >>>> BR >>>> Javier. >>>> >>>> >>>> [firma correo jdps] >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> 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-administrative mailing list >>>> >>>> Fiware-administrative at lists.fi-ware.eu >>>> >>>> >>>> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-administrative >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n >>>> S/N >>>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>>> >>>> e-mail: >>>> mcp at tid.es >>>> >>>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n >>>> S/N >>>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>>> >>>> e-mail: >>>> mcp at tid.es >>>> >>>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n >>>> S/N >>>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>>> >>>> e-mail: >>>> mcp at tid.es >>>> >>>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica >>> _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 >>> _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N >>> _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) >>> Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 >>> >>> e-mail: mcp at tid.es >>> >>> Follow FI-WARE on the net >>> >>> 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-testbed mailing list >>> Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu >>> https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed >>> >>> >> >> . >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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: From mcp at tid.es Wed Apr 10 09:53:37 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:53:37 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Testbed down Message-ID: <51651A81.7070307@tid.es> Dear all, This is just to let you know that there are problems in the testbed. It looks like it is an electrical problem in the racks. We will send no further communications by email, we will keep you informed via the usual channel: * https://twitter.com/FWTestbedStatus Best regards, Miguel -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Wed Apr 17 10:51:18 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:51:18 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] timely submission of D.10.5.2 endangered Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646100E4AC@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Hi Stefano, as the time is progressing faster than we can actually contribute text - I have to inform you: it is highly likely that we will not make the relevant timeline for the 10.5.2 submission (which is due in M24). Can you please inform the EC or let the EC know via the usual channels, that we need more time to finalize this deliverable. When do you think the UCs will submit to your "reminder"? When should we "close" the input and when should we finally submit the deliverable? Especially as the current submission rate is still just a little over 50% it is as well quite likely that we will not be able to include validation answers from all the use cases in the final deliverable. For reference see: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/testbed/index.php/Validation_report_cockpit Thanks and best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed Apr 17 14:14:09 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:14:09 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] timely submission of D.10.5.2 endangered In-Reply-To: <1366191291598.1306455548@boxbe> References: <1366191291598.1306455548@boxbe> Message-ID: dear thorsten, you are rigth. bwt one of the projects, envirofi, get an extension till end of june. i guess at that time we will get the evaluation from them as the extension has been given exactly becouse to have a better evaluation. besides, i'm in contact with instant mobility for the scenario missing part. the other projects must be stressed a bit more. in conclusion i guess we have to tell arian we are delaying a bit the deliverable. ciao, stefano 2013/4/17 Sandfuchs, Thorsten > [image: Boxbe] You chose to allow > thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com even though this message failed authentication > Click to disallow > > Hi Stefano,**** > > as the time is progressing faster than we can actually contribute text - I > have to inform you: it is highly likely that we will not make the relevant > timeline for the 10.5.2 submission (which is due in M24).**** > > ** ** > > Can you please inform the EC or let the EC know via the usual channels, > that we need more time to finalize this deliverable.**** > > When do you think the UCs will submit to your ?reminder?? When should we > ?close? the input and when should we finally submit the deliverable?**** > > ** ** > > Especially as the current submission rate is still just a little over 50% > it is as well quite likely that we will not be able to include validation > answers from all the use cases in the final deliverable.**** > > ** ** > > For reference see: **** > > > https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/testbed/index.php/Validation_report_cockpit > **** > > ** ** > > Thanks and best regards,**** > > > /Thorsten**** > > -- **** > > ** ** > > Thorsten Sandfuchs**** > > ** ** > > SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | > www.sap.com **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: > http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx **** > > ** ** > > Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige > vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich > erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine > Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte > benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen > Dank. **** > > ** ** > > This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or > otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in > error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of > it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the > original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.**** > > ** ** > > Please consider the environment before printing this mail!**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- 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: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Fri Apr 19 13:52:08 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:52:08 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] validation report - your support for some nice graphics? Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66461013FB7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, I'm currently working towards the validation reporting and integrated every UC1 answers we got into one table - see attachment. Do you have any experiences or ideas on how to visualize these results "better"? Some charts come to mind but clicking them together manually will take some time and as I would expect more use cases hopefully submitting one or two questionnaires, this would then need to be reworked again manually. Or does anybody of you have major excel powers to do this semi-automatically? Thanks for any hint and/or idea on this. Best, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reporting_star_replaced.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 36359 bytes Desc: reporting_star_replaced.xlsx URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Fri Apr 19 14:41:30 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:41:30 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] validation report - your support for some nice graphics? In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66461013FB7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66461013FB7@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: dear thorsten, great work! honestly do not know anything about semi-automatism in this case. normally i do by hand. faster and you keep everything under control. btw, using indexing approach you can have some semi-automatisms. ciao, stefano 2013/4/19 Sandfuchs, Thorsten > Dear colleagues,**** > > I?m currently working towards the validation reporting and integrated > every UC1 answers we got into one table ? see attachment. **** > > Do you have any experiences or ideas on how to visualize these results > ?better?? Some charts come to mind but clicking them together manually will > take some time and as I would expect more use cases hopefully submitting > one or two questionnaires, this would then need to be reworked again > manually.**** > > Or does anybody of you have major excel powers to do this > semi-automatically?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks for any hint and/or idea on this.**** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > /Thorsten* > *** > > -- **** > > ** ** > > Thorsten Sandfuchs**** > > ** ** > > SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | > www.sap.com **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: > http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx **** > > ** ** > > Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige > vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich > erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine > Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte > benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen > Dank. **** > > ** ** > > This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or > otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in > error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of > it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the > original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.**** > > ** ** > > Please consider the environment before printing this mail!**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > -- 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: From Salvatore.Longo at neclab.eu Mon Apr 22 15:01:58 2013 From: Salvatore.Longo at neclab.eu (Salvatore Longo) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:01:58 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] WP10 phc today? Message-ID: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E6DF37@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Hi all, There will be a WP10 phc today?? BR, - Salvatore Longo ________________________________ Salvatore Longo Software Engineer NEC Europe Ltd. Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 - 246 Fax. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 - 115 E-Mail: Salvatore.longo at neclab.eu NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Freitag, 19. April 2013 14:42 To: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] validation report - your support for some nice graphics? dear thorsten, great work! honestly do not know anything about semi-automatism in this case. normally i do by hand. faster and you keep everything under control. btw, using indexing approach you can have some semi-automatisms. ciao, stefano 2013/4/19 Sandfuchs, Thorsten > Dear colleagues, I'm currently working towards the validation reporting and integrated every UC1 answers we got into one table - see attachment. Do you have any experiences or ideas on how to visualize these results "better"? Some charts come to mind but clicking them together manually will take some time and as I would expect more use cases hopefully submitting one or two questionnaires, this would then need to be reworked again manually. Or does anybody of you have major excel powers to do this semi-automatically? Thanks for any hint and/or idea on this. Best, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- 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: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Mon Apr 22 15:05:32 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:05:32 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] WP10 phc today? In-Reply-To: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E6DF37@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E6DF37@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <5175359C.1020300@nsn.com> Hi, there was no mail, so I suppose there isn't... Br, Loci On 04/22/2013 03:01 PM, ext Salvatore Longo wrote: > > Hi all, > > There will be a WP10 phc today?? > > BR, > > -Salvatore Longo > > ________________________________ > > Salvatore Longo > > Software Engineer > > NEC Europe Ltd. > > Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 > > D-69115 Heidelberg > > Tel. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 -- 246 > > Fax. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 -- 115 > > E-Mail: Salvatore.longo at neclab.eu > > NEC Europe Limited > > Registered Office: NEC House, > > 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL > > Registered in England 2832014 > > ________________________________ > > *From:*fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of > *stefano de panfilis > *Sent:* Freitag, 19. April 2013 14:42 > *To:* Sandfuchs, Thorsten > *Cc:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] validation report - your support for > some nice graphics? > > dear thorsten, > > great work! > > honestly do not know anything about semi-automatism in this case. > > normally i do by hand. faster and you keep everything under control. > btw, using indexing approach you can have some semi-automatisms. > > ciao, > > stefano > > 2013/4/19 Sandfuchs, Thorsten > > > Dear colleagues, > > I'm currently working towards the validation reporting and integrated > every UC1 answers we got into one table -- see attachment. > > Do you have any experiences or ideas on how to visualize these results > "better"? Some charts come to mind but clicking them together manually > will take some time and as I would expect more use cases hopefully > submitting one or two questionnaires, this would then need to be > reworked again manually. > > Or does anybody of you have major excel powers to do this > semi-automatically? > > Thanks for any hint and/or idea on this. > > Best, > > /Thorsten > > -- > > Thorsten Sandfuchs > > SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | > www.sap.com > > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: > http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx > > Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige > vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail > irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, > eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich > untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die > empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. > > This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or > otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail > in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or > distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us > immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > Please consider the environment before printing this mail! > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Apr 22 15:44:33 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:44:33 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] WP10 phc today? In-Reply-To: <5175359C.1020300@nsn.com> References: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E6DF37@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <5175359C.1020300@nsn.com> Message-ID: dear lorant, no, i think we do need it. thank you in advance for your help! ciao, stefano 2013/4/22 Lorant Nemeth > > Hi, > > there was no mail, so I suppose there isn't... > > Br, > Loci > > On 04/22/2013 03:01 PM, ext Salvatore Longo wrote: > > Hi all,**** > > There will be a WP10 phc today??**** > > ** ** > > BR,**** > > - Salvatore Longo**** > > ** ** > > ________________________________**** > > ** ** > > Salvatore Longo**** > > Software Engineer**** > > NEC Europe Ltd.**** > > Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36**** > > D-69115 Heidelberg**** > > ** ** > > Tel. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 ? 246**** > > Fax. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 ? 115 **** > > E-Mail: Salvatore.longo at neclab.eu**** > > ** ** > > NEC Europe Limited**** > > Registered Office: NEC House,**** > > 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL**** > > Registered in England 2832014**** > > ** ** > > ________________________________**** > > ** ** > > *From:* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [ > mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] > *On Behalf Of *stefano de panfilis > *Sent:* Freitag, 19. April 2013 14:42 > *To:* Sandfuchs, Thorsten > *Cc:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] validation report - your support for some > nice graphics?**** > > ** ** > > dear thorsten,**** > > **** > > great work!**** > > **** > > honestly do not know anything about semi-automatism in this case.**** > > normally i do by hand. faster and you keep everything under control. > btw, using indexing approach you can have some semi-automatisms.**** > > **** > > ciao,**** > > stefano**** > > ** ** > > 2013/4/19 Sandfuchs, Thorsten **** > > Dear colleagues,**** > > I?m currently working towards the validation reporting and integrated > every UC1 answers we got into one table ? see attachment. **** > > Do you have any experiences or ideas on how to visualize these results > ?better?? Some charts come to mind but clicking them together manually will > take some time and as I would expect more use cases hopefully submitting > one or two questionnaires, this would then need to be reworked again > manually.**** > > Or does anybody of you have major excel powers to do this > semi-automatically?**** > > **** > > Thanks for any hint and/or idea on this.**** > > **** > > Best,**** > > /Thorsten* > *** > > -- **** > > **** > > Thorsten Sandfuchs**** > > **** > > SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | > www.sap.com **** > > **** > > **** > > Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: > http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx **** > > **** > > Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige > vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich > erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine > Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte > benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen > Dank. **** > > **** > > This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or > otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in > error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of > it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the > original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation.**** > > **** > > Please consider the environment before printing this mail!**** > > **** > > **** > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed**** > > > > > -- > 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**** > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing listFiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.euhttps://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > > -- > L?r?nt N?meth > R&D Team Leader > Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization > > Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. > H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. > Mobile: +36209849340 > Fax: +3612154766 > lorant.nemeth at nsn.comhttp://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ > > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: > > -- 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: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Apr 22 16:45:25 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:45:25 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! Message-ID: dear all, it is important to have the phc today! who can provide an access? ciao, stefano -- 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: From mcp at tid.es Mon Apr 22 16:54:57 2013 From: mcp at tid.es (Miguel Carrillo) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:54:57 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] WP10 phc today? In-Reply-To: References: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E6DF37@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <5175359C.1020300@nsn.com> Message-ID: <51754F40.2060703@tid.es> Dear all, I also think that we need it but I am simply unable to attend. Please circulate the minutes and I'll try to read them tomorrow. BR Miguel El 22/04/2013 15:44, stefano de panfilis escribi?: dear lorant, no, i think we do need it. thank you in advance for your help! ciao, stefano 2013/4/22 Lorant Nemeth > Hi, there was no mail, so I suppose there isn't... Br, Loci On 04/22/2013 03:01 PM, ext Salvatore Longo wrote: Hi all, There will be a WP10 phc today?? BR, - Salvatore Longo ________________________________ Salvatore Longo Software Engineer NEC Europe Ltd. Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 - 246 Fax. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 - 115 E-Mail: Salvatore.longo at neclab.eu NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Freitag, 19. April 2013 14:42 To: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Cc: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] validation report - your support for some nice graphics? dear thorsten, great work! honestly do not know anything about semi-automatism in this case. normally i do by hand. faster and you keep everything under control. btw, using indexing approach you can have some semi-automatisms. ciao, stefano 2013/4/19 Sandfuchs, Thorsten > Dear colleagues, I'm currently working towards the validation reporting and integrated every UC1 answers we got into one table - see attachment. Do you have any experiences or ideas on how to visualize these results "better"? Some charts come to mind but clicking them together manually will take some time and as I would expect more use cases hopefully submitting one or two questionnaires, this would then need to be reworked again manually. Or does anybody of you have major excel powers to do this semi-automatically? Thanks for any hint and/or idea on this. Best, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -- 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 _______________________________________________ Fiware-testbed mailing list Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco _/ _/ _/ _/ Telef?nica Distrito Telef?nica _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigaci?n y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4 _/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicaci?n S/N _/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain) Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77 e-mail: mcp at tid.es Follow FI-WARE on the net 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Apr 22 17:08:01 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:08:01 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear all, thanks to boris, let's to connect through his powwonow, just to have ir short and fix the agenda for the coming days. ciao, stefano ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- Da: Moltchanov Boris Date: 22 aprile 2013 16:50 Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! A: stefano de panfilis Ciao Stefano, **** ** ** sono via e non utilizzo powwownow, quindi se vuoi potete utilizzare il mio PIN: 301047 I numeri di accesso locali sono alla pagina di powwownow.it o .com. **** ** ** Ciao,**** Boris**** ** ** *From:* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *stefano de panfilis *Sent:* Monday, April 22, 2013 4:45 PM *To:* fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu *Subject:* [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help!**** ** ** dear all,**** **** it is important to have the phc today!**** **** who can provide an access?**** **** ciao,**** stefano -- 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**** 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.* *[image: rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario.* -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Mon Apr 22 17:20:43 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:20:43 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] weekly phc Message-ID: dear all, apparently nobody was aware or able to connect. this is trange as we agreed to have our phc every monday at 17:00. please fix this date and time in your calendars as next monday we must have our weekly phc. the connection will be through powwownow and the pin is 436393. ciao, stefano -- 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: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Apr 22 17:47:53 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:47:53 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2101_1366645676_51755BAC_2101_2813_3_CBBCD6C304123F4AB23FAAE3055C8C0E0206E517442A@THSONEA01CMS04P.one.grp> Dear Stefano and colleagues. Apologize since I couldn't make this time. Will catch-up through the minutes. BR Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de stefano de panfilis Envoy? : lundi 22 avril 2013 17:08 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! dear all, thanks to boris, let's to connect through his powwonow, just to have ir short and fix the agenda for the coming days. ciao, stefano ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- Da: Moltchanov Boris > Date: 22 aprile 2013 16:50 Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! A: stefano de panfilis > Ciao Stefano, sono via e non utilizzo powwownow, quindi se vuoi potete utilizzare il mio PIN: 301047 I numeri di accesso locali sono alla pagina di powwownow.it o .com. Ciao, Boris From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:45 PM To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! dear all, it is important to have the phc today! who can provide an access? ciao, stefano -- 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 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. -- 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: From pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com Mon Apr 22 17:49:34 2013 From: pascal.bisson at thalesgroup.com (BISSON Pascal) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:49:34 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <305_1366645780_51755C14_305_12016_1_bd98fb2b-7d48-41e1-b4fb-93fb65b79351@THSONEA01HUB06P.one.grp> Ok then. Will ask Daniel (in cc) to replace me since next week I would not be there. So please don't forget to him in oyur email exchanges. Best Regards, Pascal De : fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de stefano de panfilis Envoy? : lundi 22 avril 2013 17:08 ? : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Fwd: wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! dear all, thanks to boris, let's to connect through his powwonow, just to have ir short and fix the agenda for the coming days. ciao, stefano ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ---------- Da: Moltchanov Boris > Date: 22 aprile 2013 16:50 Oggetto: RE: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! A: stefano de panfilis > Ciao Stefano, sono via e non utilizzo powwownow, quindi se vuoi potete utilizzare il mio PIN: 301047 I numeri di accesso locali sono alla pagina di powwownow.it o .com. Ciao, Boris From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of stefano de panfilis Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 4:45 PM To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! dear all, it is important to have the phc today! who can provide an access? ciao, stefano -- 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 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. -- 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: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Apr 22 20:40:35 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:40:35 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Observationsdraft for 10.5.1 report on validation process Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646101768A@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, Following up on the review report, find down below my draft of four observations given to the review report conserning the rejection of D.10.5.1 TID clarified with the Project Officer: The EC will not put into question the assessment of suitably qualified experts. Yes-no discussions about opinions are not very meaningful, and we would not enter into such discussions. Only factual statements (and not opinions dressed up as factual statements, as is often the case) would be considered Please excuse the "german" style, potentially having to many lengthy sentences down below and feel free to break things up or change them at your will J Please provide your input and corrections as soon as possible. In order to join the discussion and to cater for a shorter "release"-cycle I will add the chief architect directly to this discussion. Best, /Thorsten PS: find the original reviewer comments at the bottom of this mail Observation towards "D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects" - Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required. 1. "The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases." Observation by FI-WARE: - The validation process described was mainly proposed by FI-WARE to the architecture board, which is the top technical governance board where FI-WARE partners and use case partners are presented in. - The architecture board recognized the reviewers comments in M6 and FI-WARE proposed a subsequent "initial feedback survey" to cater for short-term feedback cycle and to allow feedback on the first Testbed instances (therefore being closely aligned with the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE release - major fi-ware release end of M17/30.09.2012 - survey send out: Di 02.10.2012 01:03). - Subsequent and proposed validation schedules are by definition of the process to be aligned within the involved stakeholders: FI-WARE and use case projects. There is no defined schedule by the validation process, therefore alignment towards subsequent FI-WARE Release is part of the involved partners and not of the process. The process allows maximum flexibility. 2. "The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. " Observation by FI-WARE: - FI-WARE agrees with the reviewers comments that the validation process as outlined and executed within the FI-WARE project within Task 10.5 does not completely follow the description of the task in the DoW - but again as this was decided and discussed within the highest possible technology board (the FI-WARE architecture board) this deviation from the DoW is in line with all related parties and the deviation in general should be acceptable. As changes to the DoW take time, these changes in the process could only be reflected as part of the upcoming amendment 4 to the DoW. 3. "According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. [..]The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Observation by FI-WARE - The D.10.5.1 deliverables states: "The design phase occurs taking care also requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters." - which does not imply a given fact that requirements actually were successfully communicated and does not imply that these requirements can be tracked throughout the whole process in the current way, agile is implemented and "lived". The deliverable in this point may have wrongly lead to the assumption that there were successfully communicated requirements, which the validation team itself couldn't really judge or imply. As the deliverable outlined later there is no tight linkage between defined requirements and the features provided. - Secondly the decision taken by the Architecture board reached was bond to the fact that validation based on all relevant features/epics provided by the FI-WARE project was not reasonable for the given amount of time and expected efforts - As of today FI-WARE features do comprise of more than 900 features (please bear in mind that only limited resources were foreseen in the DoW to actually execute on the validation task towards the core platform). - Finally it was decided by the Architecture board that a "validation questionnaire" to be provided by FI-WARE has to cater for validation and mainly will be based upon questions related to "validation context" and "generic enablers" and not based on features and requirements. The use case projects therefore were only bound to give the scenarios and their descriptions to FI-WARE and not their requirements. - Enrichment of the characterization of use case scenarios and boost of GE uptake was not in scope of the validation approach as implied in the reviewer statement. - As the amendment 4 foresees there will be again a reiteration of the validation process towards the phase 2 projects and their trials, where further changes in the process are currently being considered by the architecture board, potentially leading to a tighter linkage between requirements and GEs which might lead to a better validation. E.g. it is foreseen that use case projects will input their requirements to GE-based trackers and not to a common fi-ware tracker any more. One of the feedbacks received by the use case projects almost speaks for itself: As a general impression, the validation questions were quite helpful to provide feedback. The only issue we faced in our case was due to the fact that we evaluated the GEs per prototype component and not for specific scenarios. 4. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Observation by FI-WARE - Checking non-functional capabilities was again reiterated within the architecture board and no common consensus could be found towards the validation process. This recommendation will be taken into the next discussion which will redefine the process for FIWARE v2 (but will not be part of the D.10.5.2 deliverable as for time constraints: phase 2 projects did not start to redefine the validation process and potentially won't do so for the next two month ) Here is again the complete text from the Review Report (only broken up with some newlines): D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Tue Apr 23 10:36:54 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:36:54 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] wp10 phc of today in 15 minutes: urge help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51764826.7060407@nsn.com> Hi, sorry, but I could not participate due to the short notice and conflicting appointments. Was the NSN phone bridge and Webex not available? Br, Loci On 04/22/2013 04:45 PM, ext stefano de panfilis wrote: > dear all, > it is important to have the phc today! > who can provide an access? > ciao, > stefano > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Tue Apr 23 14:30:31 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest)) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:30:31 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc Message-ID: <792F40D951AC71438502A7FB0501E8AB04179B@DEMUMBX011.nsn-intra.net> When: Occurs every h?tfo effective 2012.10.01. from 17:00 to 18:00 Europe/Budapest. Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Phone details: Phone Number: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ ID for phone connection: 2210382800 Webex details: Link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&RT=MTgjMjU%3D Meeting Number: 704 335 226 Meeting Password: wp10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 1922 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Tue Apr 23 15:34:51 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:34:51 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc In-Reply-To: <792F40D951AC71438502A7FB0501E8AB04179B@DEMUMBX011.nsn-intra.net> References: <792F40D951AC71438502A7FB0501E8AB04179B@DEMUMBX011.nsn-intra.net> Message-ID: dear loci, many thanks! ciao, stefano 2013/4/23 Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) > When: Occurs every h?tf? effective 2012.10.01. from 17:00 to 18:00 > Europe/Budapest. > > Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time > adjustments. > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > Phone details: > Phone Number: *https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/* > ID for phone connection: 2210382800 > > > Webex details: > > Link: * > https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&RT=MTgjMjU%3D > * > Meeting Number: 704 335 226 > Meeting Password: wp10 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed > > -- 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: From laura.pucci at eng.it Wed Apr 24 12:09:18 2013 From: laura.pucci at eng.it (laura pucci) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:09:18 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Periodic Report - M13 - M24 (WP10) - call for contribution Message-ID: <6CC04C7970624FBF965FFA2EDA4DC346@YamahaRBX250> Dear WP10 partners, This is to kindly ask your contribution to the D1.2.4, the Project Periodic Report we have to deliver before the next Review at M24. As WP leader ENG is responsible to ensure that all activities performed in WP10 are fully described in this PPR, that will cover the 2nd year of the project, from M13 to M24. We ask to each partner involved in WP10 to use the attached template and describe activities done, progresses towards objectives and main achievements from May 2012 to April 2013. Please consider that we will have to integrate your contributions before sending the part related to WP9 to the coordinator, so I kindly ask you to send the document back within the end of this week, in order to have enough time to review the full document. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Please feel free to contact me any doubts you may have. My best regards, Laura -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Pucci Research and Innovation Directorate laura.pucci at eng.it Engineering Ingegneria Informatica spa Via Terragneta, 90 - 80058 Torre Annunziata (NA) Tel. +39-081.8626884 Fax +39-081.8626819 www.eng.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: D.1.2.4-FI-WARE_Periodic_Peport-M13-M24_WP10.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 255678 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Wed Apr 24 23:25:30 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:25:30 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Observationsdraft for 10.5.1 report on validation process In-Reply-To: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646101768A@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646101768A@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646101C94E@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleages, The only comment I got was the new yellow sentence down below. Anybody else? Could you quickly confirm if you [] took a look at it and found it reasonable and OK [] took a look at it and found it not reasonable and not OK [] if you won't be able to read it for the next 2 weeks (by then it needs to be long send out) [] if you want to read it and this should block further processing [] if you want to read it and this should not block further processing Next step would be to present this to the WPL/WPA of the other chapters. Thanks for any support. /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Montag, 22. April 2013 20:41 To: stefano de panfilis; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Observationsdraft for 10.5.1 report on validation process Dear colleagues, Following up on the review report, find down below my draft of four observations given to the review report conserning the rejection of D.10.5.1 TID clarified with the Project Officer: The EC will not put into question the assessment of suitably qualified experts. Yes-no discussions about opinions are not very meaningful, and we would not enter into such discussions. Only factual statements (and not opinions dressed up as factual statements, as is often the case) would be considered Please excuse the "german" style, potentially having to many lengthy sentences down below and feel free to break things up or change them at your will :) Please provide your input and corrections as soon as possible. In order to join the discussion and to cater for a shorter "release"-cycle I will add the chief architect directly to this discussion. Best, /Thorsten PS: find the original reviewer comments at the bottom of this mail Observation towards "D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects" - Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required. 1. "The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases." Observation by FI-WARE: - The validation process was initially proposed by FI-WARE to the Use-Case projects. This approach was discussed and agreed by representatives of the Use-Case projects within the Architecture Board. - The architecture board recognized the reviewers comments in M6 and FI-WARE proposed a subsequent "initial feedback survey" to cater for short-term feedback cycle and to allow feedback on the first Testbed instances (therefore being closely aligned with the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE release - major fi-ware release end of M17/30.09.2012 - survey send out: Di 02.10.2012 01:03). - Subsequent and proposed validation schedules are by definition of the process to be aligned within the involved stakeholders: FI-WARE and use case projects. There is no defined schedule by the validation process, therefore alignment towards subsequent FI-WARE Release is part of the involved partners and not of the process. The process allows maximum flexibility. 2. "The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. " Observation by FI-WARE: - FI-WARE agrees with the reviewers comments that the validation process as outlined and executed within the FI-WARE project within Task 10.5 does not completely follow the description of the task in the DoW - but again as this was decided and discussed within the highest possible technology board (the FI-WARE architecture board) this deviation from the DoW is in line with all related parties and the deviation in general should be acceptable. As changes to the DoW take time, these changes in the process could only be reflected as part of the upcoming amendment 4 to the DoW. 3. "According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. [..]The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Observation by FI-WARE - The D.10.5.1 deliverables states: "The design phase occurs taking care also requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters." - which does not imply a given fact that requirements actually were successfully communicated and does not imply that these requirements can be tracked throughout the whole process in the current way, agile is implemented and "lived". The deliverable in this point may have wrongly lead to the assumption that there were successfully communicated requirements, which the validation team itself couldn't really judge or imply. As the deliverable outlined later there is no tight linkage between defined requirements and the features provided. - Secondly the decision taken by the Architecture board reached was bond to the fact that validation based on all relevant features/epics provided by the FI-WARE project was not reasonable for the given amount of time and expected efforts - As of today FI-WARE features do comprise of more than 900 features (please bear in mind that only limited resources were foreseen in the DoW to actually execute on the validation task towards the core platform). - Finally it was decided by the Architecture board that a "validation questionnaire" to be provided by FI-WARE has to cater for validation and mainly will be based upon questions related to "validation context" and "generic enablers" and not based on features and requirements. The use case projects therefore were only bound to give the scenarios and their descriptions to FI-WARE and not their requirements. - Enrichment of the characterization of use case scenarios and boost of GE uptake was not in scope of the validation approach as implied in the reviewer statement. - As the amendment 4 foresees there will be again a reiteration of the validation process towards the phase 2 projects and their trials, where further changes in the process are currently being considered by the architecture board, potentially leading to a tighter linkage between requirements and GEs which might lead to a better validation. E.g. it is foreseen that use case projects will input their requirements to GE-based trackers and not to a common fi-ware tracker any more. One of the feedbacks received by the use case projects almost speaks for itself: As a general impression, the validation questions were quite helpful to provide feedback. The only issue we faced in our case was due to the fact that we evaluated the GEs per prototype component and not for specific scenarios. 4. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Observation by FI-WARE - Checking non-functional capabilities was again reiterated within the architecture board and no common consensus could be found towards the validation process. This recommendation will be taken into the next discussion which will redefine the process for FIWARE v2 (but will not be part of the D.10.5.2 deliverable as for time constraints: phase 2 projects did not start to redefine the validation process and potentially won't do so for the next two month ) Here is again the complete text from the Review Report (only broken up with some newlines): D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Thu Apr 25 21:26:14 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:26:14 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Initial version of 10.5.2 validation report Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646101ED3A@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, find attached the doc version of the D.10.5.2 deliverable which is due in M24. If you like to contribute to this deliverable, please review the text that I compiled and if possible directly contribute to the wiki on: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/testbed/index.php/D.10.5.2.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page (and the pages that are linked there on the "Structure of this document" chapter) If you are not so familiar with the wiki, you can as well enter comments and text in the doc-version and I will integrate it later to the wiki. I think we need to decide on how to go forward with this: I would say, the document currently provides the mere basis of this report - e.g. in chapter 6 there is a really really small initial analysis more touching on how the general process of analysis and provisioning of answers did work and not providing a deep analysis of the answers given by the use case projects. The reviewers might expect that this deliverable really assesses the complete validation process and summarizes the validation answers for each of the use cases and/or for each of the GEs. This could be integrated into the text and/or a new chapter with this content might be introduced. Should we go for this kind of deep analysis? Who would be able to contribute here? What would be your proposed time line? Any other ideas, proposals? I'm as well attaching the excel table, which allows a more deeper analysis of the answers (remember my last email - I figured it out and with the help of "pivot"-tables there are quite nice things to do in order to analyse the resuts). You can play around with these tables on your own. Another relevant/potential chapter would be to explain to a given reader of the document how to use these pivot tables in order to enable somebody to do this kind of "analysis" on his own. What do you think? Best regards, /Thorsten -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: D1052_WP10_generated.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 1795982 bytes Desc: D1052_WP10_generated.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reporting_star_replaced.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 93706 bytes Desc: reporting_star_replaced.xlsx URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Apr 29 11:47:05 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:47:05 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Initial version of 10.5.2 validation report Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD664610620E9@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Dear colleagues, Please familiarize yourself with the content of this for the Phc TODAY. We need to decide: 1. Do we need to improve the existing content prior to submission? 2. Do we submit in time (today or tomorrow) and risk a low review outcome, given potential lacks in content (missing deep analysis) 3. Do we submit later? (if yes, when?) 4. Should we go for the proposed kind of deep analysis? 5. Who would be able to contribute here? 6. What would be your proposed time line? 7. Any other ideas, proposals? Thanks, /Thorsten -----Original Message----- From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Donnerstag, 25. April 2013 21:26 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Initial version of 10.5.2 validation report Dear colleagues, find attached the doc version of the D.10.5.2 deliverable which is due in M24. If you like to contribute to this deliverable, please review the text that I compiled and if possible directly contribute to the wiki on: https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/testbed/index.php/D.10.5.2.Report_on_Validation_process_including_Validation_with_Use_Case_projects_front_page (and the pages that are linked there on the "Structure of this document" chapter) If you are not so familiar with the wiki, you can as well enter comments and text in the doc-version and I will integrate it later to the wiki. I think we need to decide on how to go forward with this: I would say, the document currently provides the mere basis of this report - e.g. in chapter 6 there is a really really small initial analysis more touching on how the general process of analysis and provisioning of answers did work and not providing a deep analysis of the answers given by the use case projects. The reviewers might expect that this deliverable really assesses the complete validation process and summarizes the validation answers for each of the use cases and/or for each of the GEs. This could be integrated into the text and/or a new chapter with this content might be introduced. Should we go for this kind of deep analysis? Who would be able to contribute here? What would be your proposed time line? Any other ideas, proposals? I'm as well attaching the excel table, which allows a more deeper analysis of the answers (remember my last email - I figured it out and with the help of "pivot"-tables there are quite nice things to do in order to analyse the resuts). You can play around with these tables on your own. Another relevant/potential chapter would be to explain to a given reader of the document how to use these pivot tables in order to enable somebody to do this kind of "analysis" on his own. What do you think? Best regards, /Thorsten -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Mon Apr 29 11:51:32 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:51:32 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Observationsdraft for 10.5.1 report on validation process References: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD6646101768A@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66461062107@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Status: I got "one" reply on the questions raised. Clarification from the WPL/WPA meeting: - The observation letter will be send out on a work package level, as soon as we have a consolidated letter. - This particular observation letter should be forwarded to the WPL/WPA list for additional comments. In the PhC today we have to decide if we still need changes and when we send the letter for further processing. Best, /Thorsten From: Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 23:26 To: Sandfuchs, Thorsten; stefano de panfilis; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Subject: RE: [Fiware-testbed] Observationsdraft for 10.5.1 report on validation process Dear colleages, The only comment I got was the new yellow sentence down below. Anybody else? Could you quickly confirm if you [] took a look at it and found it reasonable and OK [] took a look at it and found it not reasonable and not OK [] if you won't be able to read it for the next 2 weeks (by then it needs to be long send out) [] if you want to read it and this should block further processing [] if you want to read it and this should not block further processing Next step would be to present this to the WPL/WPA of the other chapters. Thanks for any support. /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Sandfuchs, Thorsten Sent: Montag, 22. April 2013 20:41 To: stefano de panfilis; fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu; JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Subject: [Fiware-testbed] Observationsdraft for 10.5.1 report on validation process Dear colleagues, Following up on the review report, find down below my draft of four observations given to the review report conserning the rejection of D.10.5.1 TID clarified with the Project Officer: The EC will not put into question the assessment of suitably qualified experts. Yes-no discussions about opinions are not very meaningful, and we would not enter into such discussions. Only factual statements (and not opinions dressed up as factual statements, as is often the case) would be considered Please excuse the "german" style, potentially having to many lengthy sentences down below and feel free to break things up or change them at your will :) Please provide your input and corrections as soon as possible. In order to join the discussion and to cater for a shorter "release"-cycle I will add the chief architect directly to this discussion. Best, /Thorsten PS: find the original reviewer comments at the bottom of this mail Observation towards "D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects" - Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required. 1. "The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases." Observation by FI-WARE: - The validation process was initially proposed by FI-WARE to the Use-Case projects. This approach was discussed and agreed by representatives of the Use-Case projects within the Architecture Board. - The architecture board recognized the reviewers comments in M6 and FI-WARE proposed a subsequent "initial feedback survey" to cater for short-term feedback cycle and to allow feedback on the first Testbed instances (therefore being closely aligned with the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE release - major fi-ware release end of M17/30.09.2012 - survey send out: Di 02.10.2012 01:03). - Subsequent and proposed validation schedules are by definition of the process to be aligned within the involved stakeholders: FI-WARE and use case projects. There is no defined schedule by the validation process, therefore alignment towards subsequent FI-WARE Release is part of the involved partners and not of the process. The process allows maximum flexibility. 2. "The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. " Observation by FI-WARE: - FI-WARE agrees with the reviewers comments that the validation process as outlined and executed within the FI-WARE project within Task 10.5 does not completely follow the description of the task in the DoW - but again as this was decided and discussed within the highest possible technology board (the FI-WARE architecture board) this deviation from the DoW is in line with all related parties and the deviation in general should be acceptable. As changes to the DoW take time, these changes in the process could only be reflected as part of the upcoming amendment 4 to the DoW. 3. "According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. [..]The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Observation by FI-WARE - The D.10.5.1 deliverables states: "The design phase occurs taking care also requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters." - which does not imply a given fact that requirements actually were successfully communicated and does not imply that these requirements can be tracked throughout the whole process in the current way, agile is implemented and "lived". The deliverable in this point may have wrongly lead to the assumption that there were successfully communicated requirements, which the validation team itself couldn't really judge or imply. As the deliverable outlined later there is no tight linkage between defined requirements and the features provided. - Secondly the decision taken by the Architecture board reached was bond to the fact that validation based on all relevant features/epics provided by the FI-WARE project was not reasonable for the given amount of time and expected efforts - As of today FI-WARE features do comprise of more than 900 features (please bear in mind that only limited resources were foreseen in the DoW to actually execute on the validation task towards the core platform). - Finally it was decided by the Architecture board that a "validation questionnaire" to be provided by FI-WARE has to cater for validation and mainly will be based upon questions related to "validation context" and "generic enablers" and not based on features and requirements. The use case projects therefore were only bound to give the scenarios and their descriptions to FI-WARE and not their requirements. - Enrichment of the characterization of use case scenarios and boost of GE uptake was not in scope of the validation approach as implied in the reviewer statement. - As the amendment 4 foresees there will be again a reiteration of the validation process towards the phase 2 projects and their trials, where further changes in the process are currently being considered by the architecture board, potentially leading to a tighter linkage between requirements and GEs which might lead to a better validation. E.g. it is foreseen that use case projects will input their requirements to GE-based trackers and not to a common fi-ware tracker any more. One of the feedbacks received by the use case projects almost speaks for itself: As a general impression, the validation questions were quite helpful to provide feedback. The only issue we faced in our case was due to the fact that we evaluated the GEs per prototype component and not for specific scenarios. 4. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. Observation by FI-WARE - Checking non-functional capabilities was again reiterated within the architecture board and no common consensus could be found towards the validation process. This recommendation will be taken into the next discussion which will redefine the process for FIWARE v2 (but will not be part of the D.10.5.2 deliverable as for time constraints: phase 2 projects did not start to redefine the validation process and potentially won't do so for the next two month ) Here is again the complete text from the Review Report (only broken up with some newlines): D10.5.1 Report on Validation Process including Validation with Use Case projects This deliverable outlines the designed and recommended validation process for the use cases to follow. Additionally the initial feedback survey, which was initiate and send to the use case projects and the main findings are outlined. The validation process described in the document is generally well thought and detailed; however, it has been devised without sufficient consideration of the FI-WARE project and FI-WARE Releases. The validation approach is also considered insufficient, in view of what is envisaged in the DoW in supporting Use Case projects on deployment, execution and validation of the conceptual prototypes in respect of the available GEs. According to the deliverable, the design phase of FI-WARE incorporates requirements that have been successfully communicated from the Use Cases Projects to the FI-WARE chapters. As the link between Use Case requirements and the actual content of the individual chapters is not readily traceable, this has a significant impact on the validation, and the extent to which the Agile best practices have been embraced. As explained in the document, there is no tight linkage between the defined requirements and the features provided by the GE providers. Hence, the validation and requirements evaluation will not be based on a requirements matrix, but will follow an open questionnaire approach. The available questionnaire is presently basic, and is a long way off from providing the validation required to enrich the characterisation of Use Case scenarios (as a contribution towards Phase 2 trials) and generally boost GE uptake. Additionally, how testing and evaluation would be conducted in relation to the non-functional capabilities that are listed for the first releases in the Technical Roadmap is yet to be described. -- Thorsten Sandfuchs SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany | www.sap.com Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. Please consider the environment before printing this mail! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henar at tid.es Mon Apr 29 17:06:36 2013 From: henar at tid.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?HENAR_MU=D1OZ_FRUTOS?=) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:06:36 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc Message-ID: <9F2BAF5AA3E43A448F6B3DC7D4C56F584BE7DA32@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> I am in the audio conference but it is said the leader has not active the conference. --------Cita original--------- De: Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:lorant.nemeth at nsn.com] Enviado el: martes, 23 de abril de 2013 14:31 Para: Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc Cu?ndo: lunes, 29 de abril de 2013 17:00-18:00 Europe/Budapest. Ubicaci?n: When: Occurs every h?tf? effective 2012.10.01. from 17:00 to 18:00 Europe/Budapest. Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Phone details: Phone Number: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ ID for phone connection: 2210382800 Webex details: Link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&RT=MTgjMjU%3D Meeting Number: 704 335 226 Meeting Password: wp10 > ________________________________ 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: From Salvatore.Longo at neclab.eu Mon Apr 29 17:26:28 2013 From: Salvatore.Longo at neclab.eu (Salvatore Longo) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:26:28 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc In-Reply-To: <9F2BAF5AA3E43A448F6B3DC7D4C56F584BE7DA32@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> References: <9F2BAF5AA3E43A448F6B3DC7D4C56F584BE7DA32@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> Message-ID: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E71A5D@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Hi all, No WP10 phc today?? I am in the call but still no Leader yet. BR, - Salvatore Longo ________________________________ Salvatore Longo Software Engineer NEC Europe Ltd. Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 D-69115 Heidelberg Tel. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 - 246 Fax. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 - 115 E-Mail: Salvatore.longo at neclab.eu NEC Europe Limited Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in England 2832014 ________________________________ From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of HENAR MU?OZ FRUTOS Sent: Montag, 29. April 2013 17:07 To: Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc I am in the audio conference but it is said the leader has not active the conference. --------Cita original--------- De: Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:lorant.nemeth at nsn.com] Enviado el: martes, 23 de abril de 2013 14:31 Para: Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Asunto: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc Cu?ndo: lunes, 29 de abril de 2013 17:00-18:00 Europe/Budapest. Ubicaci?n: When: Occurs every h?tf? effective 2012.10.01. from 17:00 to 18:00 Europe/Budapest. Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Phone details: Phone Number: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ ID for phone connection: 2210382800 Webex details: Link: https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&RT=MTgjMjU%3D Meeting Number: 704 335 226 Meeting Password: wp10 > ________________________________ 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: From thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com Tue Apr 30 14:17:13 2013 From: thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com (Sandfuchs, Thorsten) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:17:13 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Periodic Report - M13 - M24 (WP10) - call for contribution In-Reply-To: <6CC04C7970624FBF965FFA2EDA4DC346@YamahaRBX250> References: <6CC04C7970624FBF965FFA2EDA4DC346@YamahaRBX250> Message-ID: <2981E9D6242FCF47ADC9B5DBA5DFD66461068848@DEWDFEMB11A.global.corp.sap> Hi Laura, Find the input from SAP attached. The green text is the text that I added - the YELLOW text is partially the text, which was communicated in the M13-M18 reporting. I would make you and Stefano aware that I write quite "openly" about the consensus reach in the last WPL/WPA meeting for submission of D.10.5.2 (early submission, based on initial data, including some of the rationals given in that meeting) Best regards, /Thorsten From: fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of laura pucci Sent: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 12:09 To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE: Periodic Report - M13 - M24 (WP10) - call for contribution Dear WP10 partners, This is to kindly ask your contribution to the D1.2.4, the Project Periodic Report we have to deliver before the next Review at M24. As WP leader ENG is responsible to ensure that all activities performed in WP10 are fully described in this PPR, that will cover the 2nd year of the project, from M13 to M24. We ask to each partner involved in WP10 to use the attached template and describe activities done, progresses towards objectives and main achievements from May 2012 to April 2013. Please consider that we will have to integrate your contributions before sending the part related to WP9 to the coordinator, so I kindly ask you to send the document back within the end of this week, in order to have enough time to review the full document. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Please feel free to contact me any doubts you may have. My best regards, Laura ________________________________ Laura Pucci Research and Innovation Directorate laura.pucci at eng.it Engineering Ingegneria Informatica spa Via Terragneta, 90 - 80058 Torre Annunziata (NA) Tel. +39-081.8626884 Fax +39-081.8626819 www.eng.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: D.1.2.4-FI-WARE_Periodic_Peport-M13-M24_WP10_SAP.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 262905 bytes Desc: D.1.2.4-FI-WARE_Periodic_Peport-M13-M24_WP10_SAP.docx URL: From lorant.nemeth at nsn.com Tue Apr 30 15:26:13 2013 From: lorant.nemeth at nsn.com (Lorant Nemeth) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:26:13 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc In-Reply-To: <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E71A5D@DAPHNIS.office.hd> References: <9F2BAF5AA3E43A448F6B3DC7D4C56F584BE7DA32@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <5DCCEFAAAAD37745A888BC14F42BF4A538E71A5D@DAPHNIS.office.hd> Message-ID: <517FC675.1040405@nsn.com> Hi, I was there as well, but had the same experience... Br, Loci On 04/29/2013 05:26 PM, ext Salvatore Longo wrote: > > Hi all, > > No WP10 phc today?? I am in the call but still no Leader yet. > > BR, > > -Salvatore Longo > > ________________________________ > > Salvatore Longo > > Software Engineer > > NEC Europe Ltd. > > Kurf?rsten-Anlage 36 > > D-69115 Heidelberg > > Tel. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 -- 246 > > Fax. +49/(0) 62 21/43 42 -- 115 > > E-Mail: Salvatore.longo at neclab.eu > > NEC Europe Limited > > Registered Office: NEC House, > > 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL > > Registered in England 2832014 > > ________________________________ > > *From:*fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu > [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *HENAR > MU?OZ FRUTOS > *Sent:* Montag, 29. April 2013 17:07 > *To:* Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Subject:* Re: [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc > > I am in the audio conference but it is said the leader has not active > the conference. > > --------Cita original--------- > *De:* Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:lorant.nemeth at nsn.com] > *Enviado el:* martes, 23 de abril de 2013 14:31 > *Para:* Nemeth, Lorant (NSN - HU/Budapest); > fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > *Asunto:* [Fiware-testbed] FI-WARE WP10 weekly phc > *Cu?ndo:* lunes, 29 de abril de 2013 17:00-18:00 Europe/Budapest. > *Ubicaci?n:* > > When: Occurs every h?tf? effective 2012.10.01. from 17:00 to 18:00 > Europe/Budapest. > > Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time > adjustments. > > *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > Phone details: > > Phone Number: https://www2.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/nvc/ > > ID for phone connection: 2210382800 > > Webex details: > > Link: > https://nsn.webex.com/nsn/j.php?ED=248089647&UID=0&PW=NYTExMDU5OTM1&RT=MTgjMjU%3D > > Meeting Number: 704 335 226 > > Meeting Password: wp10 > > > > > _ ________________________________ _ > > > 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-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -- L?r?nt N?meth R&D Team Leader Research topics: Software Defined Networking, Network Virtualization Nokia Siemens Networks Kft. H-1092 Budapest, K?ztelek u. 6. Mobile: +36209849340 Fax: +3612154766 lorant.nemeth at nsn.com http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/ This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Local registered entity information: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: