Hi all,
please find attached my draft of the minutes for today's call.
Please add your comments for changes, especially for the bold point,
where I did not catch the decision.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Sivan
--
Sivan Pätsch
Digital Policy Adviser
OpenForum Europe
tel +32 (0) 2 486 4151
mob +49 (0) 171 282 7689
web http://www.openforumeurope.org
Follow us on Twitter @OpenForumEurope
--
OFE Limited, a private company with liability limited by guarantee
Registered in England and Wales with number 05493935
Registered office: Claremont House, 1 Blunt Road, South Croydon, Surrey
CR2 7PA, UK
Dear all,
I am sending you attached our agenda for our meeting on Monday. Please let
me know, if you want to add sth. Our discussion points are many and I will
try to keep each point as short as possible in order to cover them all
within our given time.
I am looking forward to hear from you and I will send you the Framatalk
link as usual some minutes before our start.
I hope you had nice summer days and are as excited as me to continue the
work on FOSS4SMEs.
Hear you soon - Take care!
Best,
Katerina
--
[image: atlantis-logo-for-signatures]
*Katerina Tsinari*
*EU Projects consultant*
*Αntoni Tritsi 21, 570 01 Thessaloniki*
*T:*
*2310 233 266*
*Email:*
*tsinari(a)abe.gr <elsianli(a)abe.gr>*
*URL:*
*www.abe.gr <http://www.abe.gr/>*
*Skype:*
*kathrintheskier83*
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
<https://twitter.com/EngAtlantis>
<https://www.facebook.com/Atlantis-Engineering-SA-141993602518655>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/112248896999799346483>
Dear Peer Reviewers of O1,
unfortunaltely Dlearn is closed till the 3rd of September, so you/we will
not get an answer before the first week of September. Since our internal
deadline for the peer review task was the 20th of August, lets move on with
what we can, so that there are no big delays for the upcoming Interim
Report in September.
For our internal evaluation procedure, it is enough for now if you make
your comments inside the documents using the *"track change" option* of
Word. If you can't use this option in Open Office, please try to find an
alternative that will work for us at ATL as well. Concerning further steps
described in the Quality Plan, lets wait for the answers of Dlearn before
you do extra work there.
The documents under evaluation are *the final versions* of the following:
- O1/A1: the 6 Final DESK and FIELD country reports. (According to my notes
DIT wanted to deliver an updated version of the Irish report with some
changed graphs and SKUNI wanted to update the Swedish report for
consistency reasons by adding some visual representations. Please forgive
me here, if you have done these already, but I cant find these files.)
- O1/A2: the document "FOSS4SMEs_ECVET FOSS BU profile".
Lets keep also in mind what we promised in the proposal (see p.38 and
41): "*Every
intellectual output will undergo a peer review process as internal
evaluation procedure: a first draft version will be submitted to the
attention of the partners to collect comments and inputs, and then the
responsible partner will make adjustments and release the beta version. The
Results will then be subject to an external evaluation process and be
evaluated by the direct target group and external stakeholders. According
to the results of the assessment, project deliverables will be improved (if
necessary) with the aim to increase the applicability, transferability and
exploitation potential. The final release will then be the result of a
comprehensive evaluation process, which involves all the actors of the
project (partners, target group, stakeholders) in a participatory way. The
coordination of this process is designed according to a pyramid: action
leader is responsible for the specific activity evaluation procedure; the
Quality manager coordinates the overall evaluation framework and provides
assistance, guidance, tools and support; the Management Committee
(involving all project partners) takes the decisions (if needed) related to
remedial/corrective actions, re-scheduling of activities, re-location of
tasks/budget; approval of deliverables final versions.*" and p.41 "*each
result will be evaluated by two peer reviewers representatives of two
different partners. The evaluation will take into account completeness,
clarity and comprehensiveness*."
Concerning the external evaluation process, we will discuss our options and
possible steps during our telco in September. I tried to organise that our
Quality Manager is present to consult us on this on the 27th of August, but
unfortunately she is on leave.
I am looking forward to your reviewed versions, so that I can finalise the
documents for the Mobility Tool as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance!
Best,
Katerina
Στις Τρί, 14 Αυγ 2018 στις 1:24 μ.μ., ο/η Jonas Gamalielsson <
jonas.gamalielsson(a)his.se> έγραψε:
> Dear Francesco,
>
> we are in the process of reviewing outcomes from O1-A1 and O1-A2 according
> to what is stated in the MCE plan, Quality plan and the latest telco
> meeting minutes for the project. Just to clarify things in order to avoid
> misunderstandings, I have a few questions.
>
> 1. I assume we review 5 och the 6 country reports (i.e. not our own
> report) in Keybase folder ".../team/foss4smes/2. Implementation/Output
> 1/A1/Final DESK and FIELD reports/" . Is that right?
>
> 2. Shall the synthesis report "FOSS4SMEs_O1.A1_Synthesis Report.docx" in
> Keybase folder ".../team/foss4smes/2. Implementation/Output 1/A1/" be
> reviewed. This is suggested in the latest telco meeting minutes, but not in
> the MCE plan on page 15.
>
> 3. For these reports we are unsure whether the review should include both
> "Step 1" (Deliverable check-list) and "Step 2" (Template for Quality
> Assessment main results) in Annex 2 of the Quality plan. If step 1 should
> be included, we find the check status options "To Check,
> Checked, and N/A" would need to be augmented (or replaced) with a column
> explaining the outcome from the assessment.
>
> 4. For review of the outcome from O1-A2 we assume that only the document
> "FOSS4SMEs_ECVET FOSS BU profile.docx" in Keybase folder
> ".../team/foss4smes/2. Implementation/Output 1/A2/" shall be reviewed.
> Is that right?
>
>
> Kind regards
> Jonas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jonas Gamalielsson, PhD
>
> Software Systems Research Group
> Informatics Research Specialisation
> University of Skövde
> P.O. Box 408
> SE-541 28 SKÖVDE
> SWEDEN
> Office: Portalen, floor 4, room 410r
> Tel: +46 (0)500-448375
> Fax: +46 (0)500-416325
> Email: jonas.gamalielsson(a)his.se
> Web: http://www.his.se/gamj
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
*Katerina Tsinari*
Hi all,
I had a closer look at the FOSS4SMEs website and would like to leave and
share some feedback. Sorry in advance for nitpicking ;)
- The title could be changed to something different than a "welcome
to...". What about "FOSS4SMEs - Increase digital competency in small
and medium-sized businesses with FOSS"? This involves both the website
title and the orange text in the slider.
- foss4smes.eu/the-project on "Why FOSS":
- I would add the argument of vendor independence a.k.a. decreasing
vendor lock-in
- change "hardware" -> "technology", the control includes more than
just the silicon ;)
- foss4smes.eu/what-is-foss/:
- open source was rather created as a marketing term for Free
Software, not as an "alternative".
- I don't quite like that Free Software is described as an
alternative. Actually, all software has been FOSS until the 80's.
But I see that most readers don't know this nuance.
- Regarding the confusion about the different terms, this article [^1]
explains it quite well. This "interpretation" is equal to OSI's by
the way.
- foss4smes.eu/the-consortium/:
- It could be good to add some short descriptions of the partner
organisations to this page, next to the individual logos.
- If that's too much work, make the links of the logos go to the
partners' websites instead of the larger version of the image.
- foss4smes.eu/category/latest-news/:
- All news are from 19 April which doesn't really make much sense.
Could you please change the dates to fix the order?
- Technicalities
- The website should be accessible via HTTPS, so with an SSL
certificate. Otherwise visitors will see security warnings, and
search engines may downgrade the website
- The website includes external resources from google.com, vine.co and
twitter.com and therefore leaks visitors' data to those companies.
In the light of GDPR and our visitors' privacy, can we disable these
external inclusions?
- The menus sometimes lead to blank pages. For instance, a click on
"FOSS4SMES" and "FOSS BUSINESS USER" in the navigation bar.
I hope this helps :)
Best,
Max
[^1]: https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/comparison.html
--
Max Mehl - Program Manager - Free Software Foundation Europe
Contact & information: https://fsfe.org/about/mehl | @mxmehl
Become a supporter to enable our work: https://fsfe.org/join
Hi All,
Please find attached the draft document for the training plan as discussed
in our last meeting. I welcome any feedback back or comments on the content
which may need further clarification. The description of
preparation material for the video content is to follow. I think this will
be clearer to myself and Brian Gillespie once we have completed a working
version of our unit. You can, of course, continue with preparing your
content without this information.
I will upload the reviewed version to Keybase next week after comments.
Many thanks to Katerina as always for her valuable input and assistance in
creating this.
Regards,
B.
--
Brian Keegan, Ph.D, M.Phil, Pg.Dip (Ed), B.Eng, MIEEE
Senior Lecturer
Programme Chairperson (DT211C, Computer Science - Infrastructure)
DIT School of Computer Science
web: www.drbriankeegan.com
<http://www.drbriankeegan.com>
Academy Support Advisor
Academy Support Center Staff
--
This email originated from DIT. If you received this email in error,
please delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the
named addressee, disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action
based on the contents of this email or attachments is prohibited.
www.dit.ie <http://www.dit.ie/>
Is ó ITBÁC
a tháinig an ríomhphost seo. Má
fuair tú an ríomhphost seo trí earráid, scrios
de do chóras é le do thoil.
Tabhair ar aird, mura tú an seolaí ainmnithe, go
bhfuil dianchosc ar aon
nochtadh, aon chóipeáil, aon dáileadh nó ar aon ghníomh
a dhéanfar bunaithe
ar an ábhar atá sa ríomhphost nó sna hiatáin seo. www.dit.ie
<http://www.dit.ie/>
Tá ITBÁC ag aistriú go Gráinseach Ghormáin – DIT is
on the move to Grangegorman <http://www.dit.ie/grangegorman>