[Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report)

[Sandfuchs, Thorsten]

Dear colleagues,
Can you please help me to understand what the reject of the Deliverable 10.5.1 "means"? Reviewers do reject our deliverable, but do not want any resubmissions, without giving clear guidance on how to mitigate the situation (relevant text attached below). They clearly see the discrepancy between the DoW and the work carried out, but as this was agreed on the AB level, I do not think that we have a major clinch here - or do we? At least the reviewers leave it open :(

So what do YOU think we should do?

I would be happy if we can setup a dedicated call on this review-report for WP10 in due time.

Best regards,

                                                                /Thorsten

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.
Deliverable D10.5.1 is rejected. No re-submission is required,


From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Dienstag, 12. März 2013 12:14
To: fiware at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report

Dear partners,

  I forward to you without even reading it yet to avoid any delay.

  I'll come to this after I read it carefully.

  Best regards,

-- 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:

FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report

Date:

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:43:05 +0000

From:

<Vanessa.VANHUMBEECK at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Vanessa.VANHUMBEECK at ec.europa.eu>

To:

<jhierro at tid.es><mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

CC:

<CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu><mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu><mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>, <mcp at tid.es><mailto:mcp at tid.es>, <subsidies at tid.es><mailto:subsidies at tid.es>, <msli at icfocus.co.uk><mailto:msli at icfocus.co.uk>, <irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com><mailto:irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com>, <dgr at whitestein.com><mailto:dgr at whitestein.com>, <rdifrancesco at ymail.com><mailto:rdifrancesco at ymail.com>


Dear Mr Hierro,

Please find attached a scanned copy of the outcome letter and review report of project 285248 FI-WARE.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Many thanks in advance

Best regards,

Vanessa Vanhumbeeck
European Commission
DG CONNECT
Unit E3 - Net Innovation

Tel.: +32 2 296 49 39
Email: vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu<mailto:vanessa.vanhumbeeck at ec.europa.eu>



________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130312/8a637063/attachment.html>