Dear colleagues,
Thanks for your support in the matter.
I'm preparing the relevant background material for the WPL/WPA meeting to be send via email by EOB today, as follows.
Unfortunately I won't be able to join the WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if they would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic.
Any objections? Otherwise this will be send today.
Best,
/Thorsten
Dear WPL/WPA,
This is to make you all aware and start the discussion on one of the parts of the Review report concerning the validation topic (10.5.1).
Status:
- D.10.5.1 (validation report) was rejected (as attached below) and they expect a resolved version of the validation report for M24 (already end of April)
- Main point from the reviewers: validation report does not met the expectations set by the DoW.
1. UC requirements are not linked to the validation
(Personal assumption: ... as they were not properly recorded in the first place)
2. Non-functional capabilities are not part of the presented evaluation approach
- This can't be resolved on the testbed-level, we have to start the resolution and discussion on the WPL/WPA level
My personal opinion to the matter:
- The validation process was aligned between the UC and FI-WARE and was part of an official AB-resolution
- The requirement matrix can't be established, as we do not have a concise list of requirements by the UCs.
- For the non-functional capabilities we need to come up with a new approach - currently I don't know have a good idea on how to approach this - do you have any other agile processes where non-functional capabilities are part of the validation?
Our (quiet obvious) options for 1. (UC requirement links) are:
I. Give in to the reviewers and try to intro a link between the "requirements"/"feature"-list and the UC validation
(although I personally won't know who would really be able to fill in if a feature is really present )
II. Convince the reviewers that the AB board decision overrules the DoW
(potentially and just-to-be-sure: this should be communicated before the next review and potentially clarified with the PO)
III. ... < your options go here > :)
Our (quiet obvious) options for 2. (non-functional capabilities) are:
I. Give in to the reviewers and introduce a new process on how to
(Who can contribute here?)
II. ... < your options go here > :)
Unfortunately I won't be able to join the WPL/WPA call for long (and iff, only for the first slot) on Tuesday, therefore I would appreciate if you would take the topic in the first slot and make it the first topic.
Thanks for any feedback and input and best regards,
/Thorsten
Attachement:
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-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrillo
Sent: Mittwoch, 13. März 2013 18:33
To: fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report)
Dear all,
Thorsten is right in asking what to do. Resubmission is not needed but we either way there is a new issue for April where we should have it clear how to handle it. They actually do not ask to resubmit because they expect to find a suitable new version with something more convincing.
Thorsten did a good job or at least this is what I think, at least taking into account the situation. But the reviewers basically complain that the document does not serve its purpose. It is strongly related to Task 10.5 in the DoW if I am right and it is clear that the process did not reach the heights that we expected. The document clearly reflects it and this is why they object. Now we need to think what to do (if we can do anything at all). We need to discuss this maybe in the weekly call at WPL/WPA level (next week it will happen on Tuesday, due to a holiday on Monday in Spain)
Best regards,
Miguel
El 12/03/2013 15:48, BISSON Pascal escribió:
Hi Thorsten,
For me D10.5.1 even if rejected doesn't require resubmission simply because as stated in the review report: "the next iterative version is due in the next review period.
See the way things are stated on page 5 of the Review 4 report.
===============================================
The following deliverables are rejected:
* D2.4.1b (being a re-submission)
* D4.1.1b (being a re-submission)
* D4.5.1
* D5.1.1b (being a re-submission)
* D10.4.1
* D10.5.1
* D10.5.1
None of the above deliverables requires resubmission, as the next iterative version is due in
the next review period. As this is an interim review, no cost assessments are given.
======================================================
Best Regards,
Pascal
De : 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] De la part de Sandfuchs, Thorsten
Envoyé : mardi 12 mars 2013 13:21
À : fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Objet : [Fiware-testbed] Deliverable 10.5.1 rejected (was: FW: [Fiware-wpa] Fwd: FI-WARE 4th Review meeting: Outcome Letter & Review report)
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> [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<mailto:fiware 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>
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_/ _/_/ Miguel Carrillo Pacheco
_/ _/ _/ _/ Telefónica Distrito Telefónica
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ Investigación y Edifico Oeste 1, Planta 4
_/ _/ _/ _/ Desarrollo Ronda de la Comunicación S/N
_/ _/_/ 28050 Madrid (Spain)
Tel: (+34) 91 483 26 77
e-mail: mcp at tid.es<mailto: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 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/20130315/fa3f99d9/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy