[Uni-verse] Re: Meeting next week

[Peter Becker]

Dear partners

I agree with Lauri, the meeting depends on necessity for the process.
Regarding the Final specification (D2.3) hopefully each partner can 
contribute on relevant sections. IF WE HAVE A SMOOTH PROCESS the coming 
week we could save the physical meeting to later.

As LAuri point out, one of central weaknesses of present text is
evaluation. This has three parts
8.1 general
8.2 architectural
8.3 digital media

My idea is that "8.1 general eval" is a technical evaluation based on
the WP3-7 specifications. This is why I asked for more detail on
measures, benchmarks for each section.
In WP4 and 7 partners have contributed this nicely.
Some others remain, like WP 3(?), 5, 8.2 and 8.3

With 8.2 and 8.3 usability should be included, evaluation spanning from 
functional check, to usability and possibly user interviews.
The scenarios are a starting point but measures and procedures could be
developed in 8.2 and 8.3.

IF we have those additions in each section hopefully this will do.
This is an issue I hope to solve in dialogue with involved partners.

I feel this is more efficient than a meeting at this point BUT
it takes that all relevant partners respond to the draft.

Thanks Lauri for swift and good comments. I welcome all other partners
to point at possible weaknesses of D2.3 and suggestions for amendment.

all the best,
Peter


Lauri Savioja wrote:
> Hi Gert,
> 
> I hope we don't need a meeting, but I am not sure about this yet. I
> think the main topics for the meeting would have been:
> 
> 1) Dissemination and exploitation plan
> 2) Final specification (D2.3)
> 
> It is hard to comment the status of dissemination and exploitation
> plans, since I haven't received any draft for comments. If everyone
> has sent their contribution to Angela, I am sure Angela and Ton will
> make a nice document out of that.
> 
> Peter sent the new version of D2.3 today, and it seems to be in quite
> good shape. The only thing I'm worried about is the validation and
> testing plan. At the moment there is almost nothing concrete in that
> section!  I hope someone is preparing that chapter.
> 
> So, I would like to conclude that we don't need meeting if the
> following two things can be ensured:
> 
> 1) Angela has enough of data to make the required plans
> 2) Someone is working to dramatically enhace Chapter 8 in D2.3
> 
> I hope there are no other crucial factors in the near future of
> Uni-Verse :-).
> 
> Regards,
> 	Lauri
> 
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Gert Svensson wrote:
> 
> 
>>Dear Partners,
>>
>>one of the main issues on this meeting should have been the 
>>dissemination and exploitation plan.
>>However Angela and Ton have indicated that they can't attend a meeting 
>>the suggested day.
>>This  means that it would be better to have the meeting later.
>>
>>However I haven't got any comments IF we could cope with doing a first 
>>class specification and
>>dissemination and exploitation plan without any meeting.   Any comments?
>>If not when would a meeting be appropriate (presumably before Jan 31).
>>
>>Best Regards
>>Gert
>>
>>Lauri Savioja wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Gert,
>>>
>>>Could you, please, confirm what is our plan regarding the proposed
>>>meeting next week. So far I haven't made any travel preparations, but
>>>think I should make some it quite soon if we are going to have the
>>>meeting. So, basically I have two questions:
>>>
>>>1) Shall we have the meeting?
>>>2) If we have the meeting, where it will take place?
>>>
>>>All the best,
>>>	Lauri
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
>