Dear Stefano, All, Tue 16.30 doesn't work for me, I already have another engagement with my management. Thanks for considering another date/slot A. Il 15/03/2013 15:16, stefano de panfilis ha scritto: > 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 <mailto: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> >> [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 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> >> [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 <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: * >> >> >> >> 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 <tel:%2B32%202%20296%2049%2039> >> 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 <tel:%28%2B34%29%2091%20483%2026%2077> > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-testbed mailing list > Fiware-testbed at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-testbed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130315/20c10ef6/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy