Dear Elisa, dear Francesco,
the "Quality Manager monitors that each step of the Peer Review process is implemented correctly and the procedure respected" (p.13 of the Quality Plan). I would like to ask you to support our team on this in the coming days, when this process is taking place. Your input is valuable.
We havent followed the exact steps as described in the Quality Plan (page 11, 12) and it seems that we understand them differently within the team. Can you please help the team and describe them more clearly as a list of bullet points in your next e-mail answer to avoid misunderstandings? (*f.e. Step 1: The author prepares a first draft and sends it to the consortium. Step 2: The consortium provides remarks. Step 3: The author asses the draft and delivers a first final version. Step 4: The QM checks all results of one Output for compliance, Step 5: QM asks Peer Reviewers of one Output to fill in template x, Step 6: The respective authors are asked to improve results, Step 7: The consortium accepts the final results or asks further changes etc.*) I think this will help us all understand what we need to do and avoid extra work.
Since the Peer Review of O1 should finish by the end of August, we would appreciate it a lot to have an answer from you as soon as possible. There is still time to finalise everything on time for the Interim Report (due in September).
Thank you in advance.
Best, Katerina
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jonas Gamalielsson jonas.gamalielsson@his.se Date: Παρ, 24 Αυγ 2018 στις 9:25 π.μ. Subject: Re: FOSS4SMEs - review of O1 To: Bjorn Lundell bjorn.lundell@his.se, Katerina Tsinari < katerina.tsinari@gmail.com> Cc: Brian Keegan brian.x.keegan@dit.ie, Brian Gillespie < brian.x.gillespie@dit.ie>, FOSS4SMEs mailing list < foss4smes-team@lists.fsfe.org>
Dear Katerina,
the preliminary review report we uploaded on the 20th is located here in Keybase:
K:\team\foss4smes\2. Implementation\Output 1\Reviews\SKUNI
We will also include comments for the FOSS BU profile document asap.
We also attach the file.
Kind regards Jonas
On 2018-08-21 10:57, Bjorn Lundell wrote:
Dear Katerina,
On 20th of August we uploaded our internal reviews for all country
reports on the platform. We will soon upload the synthesis report as
clarified in the minutes, sorry for the slight delay with that review
(but it will be ready before our telco on Monday next week).
Kind regards, --Björn
On 2018-08-21 10:41, Katerina Tsinari wrote:
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@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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
