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

stefano de panfilis stefano.depanfilis at eng.it
Fri Mar 15 16:26:18 CET 2013


dear all,

are you available at 16:00?
please can anybody provide a phc bridge?

ciao,
stefano


2013/3/15 Clara M Pezuela Robles <clara.pezuela at atosresearch.eu>

> Stefano, I have another confcall on Tuesday at 17:00, so I could only
> attend half an hour unless you shift it a bit earlier****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Clara Pezuela****
>
> Head of IT Sector****
>
> Research and Innovation Group****
>
> Atos Spain SA****
>
> Clara.pezuela at atos.net ****
>
> +34 91 214 8609****
>
> +34 675 62 9974****
>
> [image: Atos_Olympic_Games_Logo_signature]****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:
> fiware-testbed-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] *On Behalf Of *stefano de
> panfilis
> *Sent:* viernes, 15 de marzo de 2013 15:16
> *To:* Miguel Carrillo
> *Cc:* 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 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 list****
>
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended
> solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive
> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it.
> As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos
> group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although
> the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network,
> the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and
> will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.
>
> Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion
> confidencial
> destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente
> pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional.
> Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar
> inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje.
> Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos
> no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun
> compromiso para el grupo Atos, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas
> partes.
> Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor
> no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera
> danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
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/e5e95406/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11614 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130315/e5e95406/attachment.png>


More information about the Old-Fiware-testbed mailing list

You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy   Cookies policy