[Fiware-tools] Reply letter to Y2 cost rejections

[Marcel Zalmanovici]

Hi Davide,

I am afraid that I, like Pedro and Yosu, lack experience when it comes to 
handle such issues.
There is no reason not to appeal the cost reduction, though I am somewhat 
skeptic that it will have any effect.

My estimate is that the development effort for Trace Analyzer consisted of 
roughly 80% of the total time invested.
Is this figure enough for what you intend to write in the letter?

Marcel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Research Lab
Haifa University, Mount.Carmel, Haifa 31905, ISRAEL
Phone: +972 4-829-6042, Fax: +972 4-829-6116



From:   Davide Dalle Carbonare <davide.dallecarbonare at eng.it>
To:     "Scheibli, Daniel" <daniel.scheibli at sap.com>, 
Cc:     "fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu" <fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Date:   07/03/2014 03:24 PM
Subject:        Re: [Fiware-tools] Reply letter to Y2 cost rejections
Sent by:        fiware-tools-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu



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.


 
_______________________________________________
Fiware-tools mailing list
Fiware-tools at lists.fi-ware.eu
https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-tools

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-tools/attachments/20140309/e85b8750/attachment.html>