<This message is for Thales, TI, FT, and TID only.>
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 <thorsten.sandfuchs at sap.com>
A: stefano de panfilis <stefano.depanfilis at eng.it>
CC: Andrea Manieri <manieri at eng.it>
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 <http://www.sap.com/>
Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements:
http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx
Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Geschäftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige
vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail
irrtümlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts,
eine Vervielfältigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdrücklich
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>
[mailto: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
<mailto: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 <jdps at tid.es> <mailto:jdps at tid.es>
*A: *
fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu <mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>
<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>
<fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu> <mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>
*CC: *
subsidies at tid.es <mailto:subsidies at tid.es> <subsidies at tid.es>
<mailto: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
<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>;
fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu <mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>
*CC:* JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA; subsidies at tid.es
<mailto: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 <http://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 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
<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 <http://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 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 <mailto: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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130403/7215543c/attachment.html>
-------------- 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130403/7215543c/attachment.docx>
-------------- 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130403/7215543c/attachment.xlsx>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy