Dear All,
please provide to me your (one per partner) review of the effort-by-task
allocation and task update, asap.
Thanks in advance,
A.
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Oggetto: Re: [Fiware-wpl] VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE
DoW dealing with PMs reallocation
Data: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:59:09 +0000
Mittente: JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ <jdps at tid.es>
A: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>,
fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>
CC: subsidies at tid.es <subsidies at tid.es>
Dear all.
Please find attached one zip file for each WP. They are an extract from
the current updated DoW of the amendment 4 to be reviewed and modified
if needed by each WPL.
I really need your prompt reaction in order to integrate all the changes
and send the updated DoW to Officer tomorrow. *Please, each WPL has to
reply with his reviewed DoW today*.
Please review:
Effort by task for each partner. (excel file)
Role for each partner (word file, according with excel file)
Description of each task. (word file)
Thank you for understanding and for your contribution.
BR
Javier.
*De:*JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA
*Enviado el:* martes, 26 de marzo de 2013 6:57
*Para:* fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu
*CC:* JAVIER DE PEDRO SANCHEZ
*Asunto:* Fwd: Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW
dealing with PMs reallocation
Hi all,
A first reaction from Arian to the reallocation of PMs and my
response to him. I decided to respond quickly to avoid justification
of further delays on the side of the Commission.
If you believe that I should have added something in my response or
you believe I said something wrong, please let me know.
Cheers,
-- 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: ***
Re: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs
reallocation
*Date: ***
Tue, 26 Mar 2013 06:54:38 +0100
*From: ***
Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es> <mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
*To: ***
<Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> <mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu>
*CC: ***
<CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu> <mailto:CNECT-ICT-285248 at ec.europa.eu>,
<subsidies at tid.es> <mailto:subsidies at tid.es>, <mcp at tid.es>
<mailto:mcp at tid.es>, <jdps at tid.es> <mailto:jdps at tid.es>, "jhierro >>
\"Juan J. Hierro\"" <jhierro at tid.es> <mailto:jhierro at tid.es>
Dear Arian,
Thanks for your quick response. My response between lines of your
message below ...
On 25/03/13 19:26, Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu
<mailto:Arian.ZWEGERS at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
Dear Juanjo,
*The overview of changes presented is very well done and clear, and
I don't have any issues with them, except for the points below. *
I don't care that much about shifting PMs and who gets what. Here
the consortium has apparently bound itself to all kind of weird
pre-existing agreements anyway, not using the flexibility offered by
the grant agreement.
I don't know exactly what you mean, but certainly the consortium has
not bound itself to any weird agreement ... I rather see it the other
way around ... the consortium has been flexible and agile to reallocate
efforts and roles of the partners so that each partner has concentrated
its efforts in less things (thus increasing the efforts in the things
they have decided to concentrate on).
I rather believe this is a positive thing. I would be much more
worried if we had adopted an approach where partners were participating
in many things, with no significant effort in any.
One of the things that I believe is rather good in the way FI-WARE is
organized is that it is like 7 IPs (one per technical chapter) but with
the big difference that if you look at each of these IPs, there is a
limited number of key partners (4-6). There is also a clear role of
partners within each chapter, each partner typically bound to the
implementation of some GE in the chapter. All of this will help, imho,
in achieveing good results.
Having said that, the thing to avoid is that industry withdraws and
academia gets more funding. That is the trend here, with industry
reducing its involvement with 640k and academia/research institutes
increasing with 640k. I understand there is no choice because industry
is not willing/able to do more, but it is against the spirit of the
industry leadership in FI-WARE/FI-PPP. And frankly, it looks very bad on
EU industry.
The industrial partners has taken the decisions consciously and I
honestly believe that the situation is not as bad as it may be
considered in a very first approach:
* There were only two GEs for which the implementation has been
transferred to an academia partner:
o Ericsson was originally planned to contribute the implementation
of the IoT Gateway Device Management GE in the IoT chapter and,
while it was agreed with them that they would support an ETSI
M2M compliant interface, they were only able to commit to
support this interface in their product for the 3rd Release of
FI-WARE. When Ericsson withdrew, we found here an opportunity
to find someone who could contribute an ETSI M2M implementation
already rather than to be able to develop it from the start.
This was Franhoufer. This made us feel more confident to keep
our initial plans to deliver an Architecture which already
considered support to the relevant ETSI M2M standard. There
were not many other options from any industry partner in Europe
so that's why.
o Ericsson was also originally planned to contribute an
implementation of the Store GE in the Apps Chapter (part of the
Business Framework). Here, we decided to go for UPM basically
for two reasons. First because they had an asset (WireCloud)
part of which (WireCloud's catalogue) could evolve to become the
Store we were looking for in reasonable time. Second because
they were committed to contribute their implementation as open
source. Here, we found that elivering the code of the Store as
open source could be something that would give FI-WARE better
chances to make impact: there are many proprietary commercial
stores out there ... but none is open source so we expect this
will call the attention of third parties.
* The rest of new PMs allocated to academia partners do not correspond
to transference of the responsibility to implement FI-WARE GEs:
o PMs transferred from Ericsson to UPM in WP9 (Tools) correspond
to the implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue portal: this is
not a FI-WARE GE in itself nor anything that will be used to
setup and operate FI-WARE Instances. It will not be
commercialized standalone so it was a matter of finding who
could make a good job and the UPM had proved they can develop a
good implementation of the FI-WARE Catalogue. The UPM also
committed to implement it as open source and that is also
relevant to ensure sustainability.
o When NSN-Germany withdrew from WP5 (tools) we found out that
finding a replacement for them was not rather critical so that
we may use the corresponding PMs/funding in reinforcing other
tasks in other WPs. We finally decided to transfer the PMs,
initally allocated to NSN-Germany in the IoT chapter, to UPM
because a) it would reinforce the work they were already doing
with the Cloud portal (to be delivered as open source and
contributed to the OpenStack Community), b) it allowed us to
assign the UPM the task of designing and maintaining the
look&feel of FI-WARE web portals (since they were in charge of
the most significant one in FI-WARE, it sounded like it made
sense) and c) it allowed us to assign the UPM to implement some
pieces of the FI-WARE Testbed/OIL portal that were not initially
foreseen as needed. There was unanimity in considering that
the UPM was doing a great job regarding the Cloud portal so it
was like natural to select them.
o Some new PMs were assigned to UniRoma because it was found that
the amount of PMs they had currently assigned was not enough for
them to carry out their assigned tasks.
This is just a first quick response to your concern. A more
elaborated response can be provided if needed.
Please note that I care more about changes in the DoW wrt
tasks/activities to be carried out. Large changes in efforts without any
change in the task description (e.g. the iMinds addition in WP3) cannot
be correct.
We prepared a new description of WP3 as a result of their inclusion
as new beneficiaries in amendment 3 ... Is there anything you are still
missing ? If it was just an example, be sure we understand that we
should provide new description of tasks/WPs where major changes are
incorporated. We are here just anticipating the figures, so that you
can approve them, subject to proper description in an amendment of the DoW.
Then, what is most important is *what happens with the contributions
from the withdrawing partners, NSN-FI and EAB.*
Just a clarification: NSN-FI withdraw without having made any
relevant contribution. I believe you refer to NSN-H (Hungary) who was
indeed playing the role of WPA in the IoT chapter and were the ones that
were contributing the Cumulocity product as implementation of the IoT
Backend Device Management GE ...
What happens with Ericsson's Service Composition - Ericsson Composition
Engine (ECE)
What happens with Ericsson's Gateway Device Management GE - Ericsson IoT
Gateway
In a previous email (19 Nov 2012), you concluded (for the ECE): "So the
problem here is not about sustainability beyond the FI-PPP (which
Ericsson states would be provided) but inside the FI-PPP ..."
Will they remain available to FI-WARE? Under what conditions?
If nothing remains available, what does that mean for their contribution
to FI-WARE? Will these be replaced?
Ericsson was contributing the implementation of two GEs in WP3 (Apps
Chapter): the Store GE, part of the Business Framework, and the ECE GE.
The amount of PMs/funding assigned to Ericsson for contributing these
two assets and evolve them was fair because Ericsson was relying on
existing and mature assets. When Ericsson withdrew from WP3, we
couldn't find any partner that may provide an asset for the Store GE so
therefore we had to plan its development. Then we found that the whole
amount of funding assigned to Ericsson was necessary to carry out that
development and we were lucky because we could leverage on the
WireCloud's catalogue for that purpose. Since there were already other
service composition tools already, we concluded that it was not critical
to find a replacement for the ECE.
Same questions for NSN-FI. I understand they were in charge of the GE
"Backend Device Management"?? And they contributed an asset called
"Cumulocity". So same questions as above.
The IoT Backend Device Management GE will be implemented through the
IDAS DCA product contributed by Telefonica. This product essentially
replaces the Cumulocity product that was planned to be contributed by NSN.
Specific questions:
1) What does the underlined text mean in the sentence "Withdrawal of
Ericsson from WP5. EAB has 20 PM in DoW and it has declared 3,34 PM
until M18, so it transfers 16 PM to FRAUNHOFER because they have to
assume Advanced Connectivity GEs with ETSI-M2M interface and _will be
involeved in the project at the beginning of April 2013!"_
Well, we are simply saying that in the case of Fraunhofer, they will
start working in the IoT chapter since beginning of April 2013 ... Of
course, Franhoufer has been working on the project since its beginning,
but in different WPs.
2) What does the following sentence mean? "TRDF-P finished at
31-12-2012. People moved to TRDF." TRDP is no longer a third party?
I hope Javier de Pedro, in copy, can reply this part since I'm not so
much aware of what third party is involved in each case. For me, all
of them are Thales ...
Finally, are you going to ask an amendment for the *Electronic-only
signature and transmission of Form C *(see attachment)?
Again, I would ask Javier de Pedro to answer this part.
Cheers,
-- Juanjo
Best regards,
Arian.
PS. I am kind-of allergic to statements like your "No early
response...", knowing that the only deadlines I'm bound to are the ones
in the grant agreementâ?¦
-----Original Message-----
From: Juanjo Hierro [mailto:jhierro at tid.es]
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:06 AM
To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT)
Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; subsidies at tid.es <mailto:subsidies at tid.es>; Miguel
Carrillo; Javier de Pedro Sanchez
Subject: VERY IMPORTANT: amendment 4 of the FI-WARE DoW dealing with PMs
reallocation
Dear Arian,
Once we have finalized amendment 3 of our DoW, we should open a new
amendment dealing with fixing all PMs reallocation that were pending
(some of which pending since July last year). As already announced in
our mail on January 20th this year, the situation is critical regarding
some of these PMs reallocation, particularly dealing with the ability to
handle withdrawal of several partners.
All this PMs reallocation have been agreed among the partners at PCC
(Project Coordination Committee), WPLs/WPAs and General Assembly level.
We believe that is is critical to close this amendment 4 before end
of April as to allow a reporting of costs for the 2nd period that is
aligned with an approved DoW.
Please find enclosed a spreadsheet which summarizes the changes
already implemented in amendment 3 as well as changes proposed in
amendment 4. Changes being proposed for amendment 4 are summarized in
the sheet titled "Changes (amendment 4)". There is a final picture of
PMs allocation to tasks for each WP as well as impact in figures
(overall funding is kept the same).
Consumption of allocated PMs have taken place since start of the 2nd
reporting period and, in the case of partners withdrawing the
consortium, since a decision was taken regarding what partner was going
to take over their responsibilities.
We will soon send you a draft of the DoW that will incorporate the
changes summarized here.
We will kindly ask you to send a response to this mail with your
agreement to the proposed PMs reallocation in advance to approval of the
DoW amendment itself which may take more time. That would give the
existing partners, overall those taking the responsibility to take over
the tasks from withdrawing partners, the necessary security to keep
their investments they have been making so far.
No early response will be taken as acknowledge and acceptance of this
proposed PMs reallocation.
We will rather appreciate your help in moving this forward.
Best regards,
-- Juanjo Hierro
-------------
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
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242>
twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932
<http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932>
________________________________
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra polÃtica de envÃo 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra polÃtica de envÃo 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/20130326/297b1ab8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WP10.zip
Type: application/x-zip-compressed
Size: 97948 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-testbed/attachments/20130326/297b1ab8/attachment.bin>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy