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
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@his.se
Web: http://www.his.se/gamj
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--