[Fiware-tools] Reply letter to Y2 cost rejections

[Davide Dalle Carbonare]

Thank you Marcel, and all the others,
     this morning we're going to have a WPL/WPA conf call dedicated to 
this cost review reply.

I let you know.
BR
Davide


On 09/03/2014 11:11, Marcel Zalmanovici wrote:
> 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/20140310/f9780e01/attachment.html>