Ready to sign?

Workspaces OpenCare
, ,
1

Dear all,

none of you fed me back with comments requesting comments/edits, from which I conclude you are ok to sign the GA in its actual state.

I got replies from EHFF and Edgeryders confirming they are not concerned with Annex 2a.

I plan to indeed validate the whole thing (part A + part B) later this morning. Please react and confirm you are OK with this timeline. I admit I am a bit worried I haven’t heard much from you guys.

Guy

2

ready

Hi Guy and you all

and sorry for the delay…

we reviewed the documents and we don’t have any particular concern about that.

We had also a short call with wemake and shared with them some thoughts about timing of the activities in WP1 which involve Milan. I suppose Cristina will send a couple of comments. For the rest, all right!

Thank you very much for the work done!

Rossana and Lucia (City of Milan)

just 1 “stupid” note (if you have time):

  • you said “Work packages had to be re-numbered so they now go from 1 to 6”: check Table 3.4.a p. 41/67 (partB), where the “old” numbering appears (WP0 to WP5)
3

Table 3.4a

Dear Rossana,

you are right, numbers of work packages in Table 3.4a were wrong. I then realized we don"t have to include it in part B as this information is integrated into part A based on the data inserted in the various forms on the portal.

4

Hi Guy,

We have read all documents and we need to modify timing in WP3:

- WP3 starts on month 2 (task 3.3: 2-20)

Deliverables

D 3.2 from month 18 to month 20

–

Mistake:

WP 2 - Description of deliverables: task 2.2 in stead of 1.2

ciao

c.

 
 
5

Problem fixed

I have updated D.3.2 with due date to 20 (with no specified starting date).

6

Thoughts on part A

@melancon, I have a proposal. Are you sure you want deliverables D5.1 and D5.2 as reports? Would it not be better to make them “Websites, patents filling etc.”? I was thinking a careful wiki on the GitHub repo instead of a report that then will only be read once, by the PO… other than that, Part A is OK for me. Now reading part 2.

7

OK with 5.1 as “Websites …” …

… maybe not (or less) for D5.2 -l athought we’ll probably want to make our requiremement analysis available through our website/wiki/etc. (as a pre-version of a report).

8

Part B?

Part B seems to be just a table of contents. What am I supposed to validate?

9

Try downloading part B again!

I just tried downloading part B and I do get a 66 page document. Anyone else experienced this problem?

10

This is what I see

The PDF icon is missing on the Part B line. The blue download icon is clickable, but nothing happens when I click it. If I click on the icon on the left (the one with the “T” I get just a Table of content.


11

Make sure you allow pop-ups

You’re right, the icon is not the pdf icon, but rather a small blue icon.

Clicking the blus icon triggers the “generation” of a pdf document. You normally get a pop-up screen showing a message asking you to be patient while your document is being downloaded. Make sure you allow pop-ups windows (you may have adblock installed, for instance).

12

Ok from EHFF

From our perspective this seems to be just fine.

One question however, should not the meetings/internal conferences be listed as tasks/milestones?

13

Urgent

@melancon

@cristina this morning suggested some important modification regarding our timing.

- WP3 starts on month 2 (task 3.3: 2-20)

Deliverables D 3.2 from month 18 to month 20

– Mistake: WP 2 - Description of deliverables: task 2.2 in stead of 1.2 - 

On the platform is still “wrong”.

Let me know if I need to modify it or only you can do it.

We also talk to @alberto.

Let me know 

14

I will modify part A (and B) – don’t worry

I will take care of all edits, don’t worry.

Thanks all for your careful reading.

1 Like