[Fiware-tools] Reply letter to Y2 cost rejections

[Davide Dalle Carbonare]

Dear Daniel,
     the idea was not to be so schematic, or strictly structured.
The first part is more general while the second one is detailed by 
deliverables
nature.
We would keep the tables in the detailed section.

as for putting some points on SW development, PLS consider that the 
development of Tools was never doubted by reviewers. What could be done 
is that each partner gives an estimation of how much effort was spent 
for the SW development (and only for development acidities)

Can you provide a clear statement to add?
... the same, for all the other partners, is more than welcome.

Actually we focused only on what reviewers rejected and cut.

BR
Davide

On 07/03/2014 13:09, Scheibli, Daniel wrote:
>
> Hi Davide,
>
> thanks for clarifying the tables.
>
> So if I understand it right, then we argue with 4 categories of efforts:
>
> 1.)SW development
>
> 2.)Documents like manuals, tutorials etc.
>
> 3.)Others like giving webinars, having conference calls etc.
>
> 4.)The accompanying deliverable documents.
>
> On page one we argue that mainly 1, followed by 2 and 3 consumed the 
> majority of efforts;
>
> 4 was only 10-15%.
>
> But the deliverable chapters so far only talks about 4. So I would 
> propose to move the tables
>
> (which address 2) into the same deliverable chapters.
>
> Also I think we might consider putting some points on 1 in there to 
> illustrate that we indeed
>
> did work on the SW. Or is the idea to intentionally rely on the 
> Technical Review Report quotes
>
> from page 1 - like "saying ok you already agreed that we did 
> substantial work there, so no need
>
> to go into further details there as"?
>
> If so, we should at least make it a bit more explicit in the 
> deliverable chapters. Otherwise one
>
> is wondering why we talk so much about 4 if that was only the 10-15%.
>
> JM2C,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> Those tables are meant to report by tool the external resources that were
> referenced from the deliverables, to give evidence that contents were 
> created and available,
> even if outside the SW accompanying deliverables.
>
> for example:
> FF Connector has (had) a pdf manual available from the FI-WARE forge
>
> I hope this clarify these tables ... please share your comments a 
> vision so that we can decide
> if it worth keep, change or remove them.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-tools/attachments/20140307/8d0bc9d9/attachment.html>