dear miguel and all, i think first we have to analyse between ourselves and than put at the attention of wpl/wpa weekly phc. there are detials that most of the other wpl wont understand while we need, of course their help. so it is much better to get there with a clear proposal. as a first comment, btw, i do not agree with reviewers comments. i think we were not able to communicate that the questionnaire had been produced in agreemnt with the uc projects, so is fi-ppp common effort not just fi-ware. certainly we should link the comments with the current epics, but this will be our work. for this purpose being holiday in spain on next monday, i suggest to postpone our wp10 phc on tuesday at 16:30. the problem is that i do not have access to phc bridges with local for numbers to provide you all. can anyone of you provide one? otherwise we go for pownow. ciao, stefano 2013/3/13 Miguel Carrillo <mcp at tid.es> > 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<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 > *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 L > > > > 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<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 > > 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: * > > 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> <Vanessa.VANHUMBEECK at ec.europa.eu> > > *To: * > > <jhierro at tid.es> <jhierro at tid.es> > > *CC: * > > <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> <CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>, > <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>, <mcp at tid.es><mcp at tid.es>, > <subsidies at tid.es> <subsidies at tid.es>, <msli at icfocus.co.uk><msli at icfocus.co.uk>, > <irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com> <irena.pavlova at isoft-technology.com>, > <dgr at whitestein.com> <dgr at whitestein.com>, <rdifrancesco at ymail.com><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 > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > 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 listFiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.euhttps://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 > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130315/20956dc1/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy