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 <jdps at tid.es> > A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>, > fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu> > CC: subsidies at tid.es <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 > donâEUR^(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 > <mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu > <mailto: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 <http://www.tid.es> > email:jhierro at tid.es <mailto:jhierro at tid.es> > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) 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 <jhierro at tid.es> <mailto:jhierro at tid.es> > > *To: *** > > > > <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> > > *CC: *** > > > > <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> > <mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, <subsidies at tid.es> > <mailto:subsidies at tid.es>, <mcp at tid.es> <mailto:mcp at tid.es>, > <jdps at tid.es> <mailto:jdps at tid.es>, "jhierro >> \"Juan J. Hierro\"" > <jhierro at tid.es> <mailto:jhierro at tid.es> > > 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 > <mailto: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 agreementâEUR¦ > > -----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 <mailto: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 <http://www.tid.es> > > email: jhierro at tid.es <mailto:jhierro at tid.es> > > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) 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 > <http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242> > > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware > > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > <http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932> > > ________________________________ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra polÃtica de envÃo y recepción de correo > electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. > > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede > consultar nuestra polÃtica de envÃo y recepción de correo > electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send > and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130403/97187667/attachment.html> -------------- 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130403/97187667/attachment.xlsx> -------------- 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130403/97187667/attachment.docx>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy