[SPARTA - network.certification] Presence of WP11 participants at the review - Network.certification

5 Feb 2020

Dear WP11 partners,

As you know the SPARTA review will take place on Friday 28/02. The 
current meeting room for the review has 40 places maximum. This is why 
CEA is suggesting to limit representation at 1 person per partner. CEA 
has asked WP leaders to compile a list of participants for each WP: "I 
would suggest to try and compile it at WP level, and we would discuss 
with the PO with this list".

Could you indicate you presence at the review at 
https://cryptpad.fr/poll/#/2/poll/edit/t4Q1FpWa2rnjCOfr3FMy8N7A/ ?

Thank you,

Philippe

-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : 	Re: [SPARTA - bodies.executive-board] Slides for the review
Date : 	Wed, 5 Feb 2020 08:34:20 +0000
De : 	LEMESLE Augustin &lt;augustin.lemesle(a)cea.fr&gt;
Pour : 	bodies.executive-board(a)internal.sparta.eu 
&lt;bodies.executive-board(a)internal.sparta.eu&gt;

Dear all,

To answer some of your concerns and for clarification, we thought of the 1 person per
organisation as the PO told us the room would be a 40 person room. Since indeed it might
limit interactions and Q&A, we will try to see with the PO for bigger premises or some
alternative solution as Michael or Hervé mentioned. For that, we would need a list of all
people attending the review, I would suggest to try and compile it at WP level, and we
would discuss with the PO with this list.

On achievements slides, I did not want to fill the template with empty achievement slides
but I expect more than one slide for achievement. What I was thinking of was a quick look
at project management on which they will already have other material but still seems good
to mention and more lengthy focus on achievements (indeed with one slide it was not
obvious). I am open to suggestion on this and on the content we could put in
"Achievements" slides. What would you see in this?

On other points:
- @Michael: on the agenda, first session WP1 and WP2 (+ WP14) may be joint and we need to
discuss this but other session will stay per WP only.
- @Jan: I'd say just not to focus on the summary orally
- 	My bad for the Roadmap slide will be added in the final version, I'm open to
suggestion on possible content also.
-	Demonstration is indeed only for programs.

Best regards,
Augustin.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Herve Debar &lt;herve.debar(a)telecom-sudparis.eu&gt;
Envoyé : mardi 4 février 2020 14:49
À : LEMESLE Augustin &lt;augustin.lemesle(a)cea.fr&gt;
Cc : bodies.executive-board(a)internal.sparta.eu
Objet : Re: [SPARTA - bodies.executive-board] Slides for the review

Dear Augustin,

I agree with many of Michael's points.

The slides seem very mechanical. On one hand, they do not easily reflect the actual
scientific production for a program. On the other hand, they seem to provide a rather
abstract projection of the governance activity, which is more "project
management", but not really governance per se.

I also share the worry about content. I am wondering about attendance of at least task
leaders for CAPE. It seems to me that the best would be to limit the number of people *in
the room* per period, e.g. for CAPE have only the 13 partners participating in the review,
and the others wait in an adjacent room. It will create some in/out confusion in the room,
but might allow for more interaction with the reviewers if needed. At the same time I can
understand doubts about the actual feasibility of my proposal.

Best regards,

Hervé

Le 04/02/2020 à 13:39, Friedewald, Michael a écrit :
...
  Dear Agustin,

 according to the last agenda that was discussed there will be joint presentations of more
than one WP (WP 1, 2, 14 / WP 8, 9 / WP 10, 11, 12). Your slides do not seem to fit for
that purpose.

 Apart from that the presentation seem to be quite formalistic: Lots of
 slides on KPI, submitted deliverables, formal risks, etc. – but only
 one slide on “Achievements”. Could you please elaborate how many
 slides you expect in total and where the focus should be. In my
 experience reviewers are more interested in content …

 Could you also elaborate a little bit about the limitation of participants in the review
meeting. I do understand that space is limited for such a big consortium like SPARTA.
 However, if we are going to discuss CONTENT with the reviewers it might be necessary to
have at least some people available. For instance: Since I am not a legal scholar I can
maybe give an overview of the results but when it comes to Q&A I would be rather soon
at my limits and would probably give the word to the experts. Otherwise the impression
that we give might be a bit strange. Having them stand-by outside the room and asking them
inside for the relevant work packages might not be very convenient but a possibility.

 Best
 Michael

 ---
 Dr. Michael Friedewald

 Coordinator ICT Research
 Competence Center Emerging Technologies Fraunhofer-Institut für
 System- und Innovationsforschung ISI Breslauer Straße 48  |  76139
 Karlsruhe
 fon: +49 721 6809-146  (-189, ass.) | fax: +49 721 6809-77-146
 mailto:
 michael.friedewald@isi.fraunhofer.de<mailto:michael.friedewald@isi.fra
 unhofer.de>
 https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de
 https://www.forum-privatheit.de
 https://www.dsfa.eu
 https://works.bepress.com/michael_friedewald/

 Neue Veröffentlichungen:

 Ochs, C.; Friedewald, M.; Hess, T.; Lamla, J. (Hrsg.): Die Zukunft der
 Datenökonomie. Digitales Leben zwischen Geschäftsmodell, Kollektivgut
 und Verbraucherschutz.  Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 2019 (Medienkulturen
 im digitalen Zeitalter).
 https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783658275105

 Friedewald, M. (Hrsg.): Privatheit und selbstbestimmtes Leben in der
 Digitalen Welt: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf aktuelle
 Herausforderungen des Datenschutzes. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg. 2018
 https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783658213831

 M. Friedewald et al. (eds.): Privacy, Security and Surveillance:
 Citizens’ Perspectives. London/New York: Routledge. 2017 (Open Access)
 https://www.routledge.com/Surveillance-Privacy-and-Security-Citizens-P
 erspectives/Friedewald-Burgess-Cas-Bellanova-Peissl/p/book/97811386492
 48

 Am 03.02.20, 16:06 schrieb "bodies.executive-board im Auftrag von LEMESLE
Augustin"
<bodies.executive-board-bounces@server.sparta.eu<mailto:bodies.executive-board-bounces@server.sparta.eu>
im Auftrag von augustin.lemesle@cea.fr<mailto:augustin.lemesle@cea.fr>>:

 Dear WP leaders,

 For the review, on 28th you can find attached a proposition for templates for the WP
presentation. As a quick timeline before the review:

 ·         Feedback w.r.t. proposed templates until 7/02

 ·         Preliminary version of the slides sent to coordination until 14/02

 ·         Final slide version until 21/02

 For reminder, we expect 1 person per organisation maximum at the review.

 Best regards,
 Augustin.
 -- 
Hervé Debar             <mailto:herve.debar@telecom-sudparis.eu>
Télécom SudParis     http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~debar_he/
Département  Réseaux  et  Services  de  Télécommunications (RST)
Tel: +33 (0)1 60 76 45 83              GSM: +33 (0)6 71 92 52 52
PGP: 539B427D                          Fax: +33 (0)1 60 76 42 91

-- 
bodies.executive-board mailing list
bodies.executive-board(a)server.sparta.eu
http://server.sparta.eu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bodies.executive-board

-- 
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------

Teach Belnet Antispam Pro if this mail (ID 041WUynKD) is spam:
Spam:       
https://antispam.belnet.be/canit/b.php?c=s&i=041WUynKD&m=6b7ff82141…
Not spam:   
https://antispam.belnet.be/canit/b.php?c=n&i=041WUynKD&m=6b7ff82141…
Forget vote:
https://antispam.belnet.be/canit/b.php?c=f&i=041WUynKD&m=6b7ff82141…
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS