Dear Brian,
my first draft of the content for Unit 1 is ready. I think this can give a
first idea to our team of how this deliverable can look like. Of course,
there are still many points to rethink and I am sending you herealong some
that came to my mind, while I was working on my part. Maybe you/we can
consider them as we go on with O2/A1.
Let me know if we want to talk in the coming days.
My thoughts/questions:
- do we need to provide the sources within our text? Are hyperlinks enough?
Do we prefer to gather all our sources and put them as a literature list
somewhere else away from the text?
- what do u think of the length of the text produced? It is supposed to be
introductory and not very detailed, but sometimes it felt so hard to reduce
words. I think your suggestion with max. 1,500 words was pretty right.
- which part of the unit do we want to turn into a video?
- what do you think of the structure of my document? Is it clear enough?
- what do you think of the sources I used?
- should I proceed and place relevant pictures inside my text or to the
side of each part?
- the lesson introduction and summary can be added easier after one
finalizes the main texts.
- assessment quizzes will be added later, when we define the assessment
procedure.
- I have a question concerning lesson "1.2. Part 2 - The different types of
‘freedom’ implied in the FOSS concept". Is this maybe the same with “1.1.
Part 2”? I cant tell the difference here and I would need some help with
literature sources.
- Similarly I don't know what to write in "1.3. Part 4 - The issues related
to responsibilities". Any suggestions?
- Finally I feel I could use some help with "Title: 1.4 FOSS communities
and their ways of collaboration". I couldn't find nice sources for this
lesson and its parts.
I am looking forward to your reply and feedback.
Of course all colleagues are welcome to contribute to this discussion, as
our collaboration is very useful at this stage. Maybe we see that there are
points we need to discuss together in our next telco in 18.09.18.
Thank you all in advance.
Best,
Katerina
--
[image: atlantis-logo-for-signatures]
*Katerina Tsinari*
*EU Projects consultant*
*Αntoni Tritsi 21, 570 01 Thessaloniki*
*T:*
*2310 233 266*
*Email:*
*tsinari(a)abe.gr <elsianli(a)abe.gr>*
*URL:*
*www.abe.gr <http://www.abe.gr/>*
*Skype:*
*kathrintheskier83*
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
<https://twitter.com/EngAtlantis>
<https://www.facebook.com/Atlantis-Engineering-SA-141993602518655>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/112248896999799346483>
Dear Brian and Katerina,
I have uploaded in the keybase repository our very first draft for the units 2.3 and 2.4.
The same points raised by Katerina in the email below would apply also to our units, which by the way is only the second part of the whole Unit 2 and as such will need to be harmonized with the contribution of OFE.
I guess this will be discussed in our next telco the next week.
@Brian, I’m taking this opportunity to kindly remind you to answer the quality evaluation survey I sent out the last week (here is the link https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YQDHCR2 ). We are currently missing only the DIT’s response, which is necessary for us to finalise the Interim Quality Report that we have to deliver at this stage.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation!
Wish you all a nice weekend,
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> Descrizione: Descrizione: dlearn
Francesco Agresta
European Project Manager
European Digital Learning Network
Via Domenico Scarlatti, 30
20124 Milano
Mob. +39 3496027623
Email <mailto:francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu> francesco.agresta(a)dlearn.eu
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> www.dlearn.eu
Da: Foss4smes-team [mailto:foss4smes-team-bounces@lists.fsfe.org] Per conto di Katerina Tsinari
Inviato: sabato 1 settembre 2018 16:47
A: Brian Keegan
Cc: FOSS4SMEs mailing list; Cosmas Vamvalis
Oggetto: [FOSS4SMEs-team] FOSS4SMEs: O2/A1, Unit 1 - 1st draft
Dear Brian,
my first draft of the content for Unit 1 is ready. I think this can give a first idea to our team of how this deliverable can look like. Of course, there are still many points to rethink and I am sending you herealong some that came to my mind, while I was working on my part. Maybe you/we can consider them as we go on with O2/A1.
Let me know if we want to talk in the coming days.
My thoughts/questions:
- do we need to provide the sources within our text? Are hyperlinks enough? Do we prefer to gather all our sources and put them as a literature list somewhere else away from the text?
- what do u think of the length of the text produced? It is supposed to be introductory and not very detailed, but sometimes it felt so hard to reduce words. I think your suggestion with max. 1,500 words was pretty right.
- which part of the unit do we want to turn into a video?
- what do you think of the structure of my document? Is it clear enough?
- what do you think of the sources I used?
- should I proceed and place relevant pictures inside my text or to the side of each part?
- the lesson introduction and summary can be added easier after one finalizes the main texts.
- assessment quizzes will be added later, when we define the assessment procedure.
- I have a question concerning lesson "1.2. Part 2 - The different types of ‘freedom’ implied in the FOSS concept". Is this maybe the same with “1.1. Part 2”? I cant tell the difference here and I would need some help with literature sources.
- Similarly I don't know what to write in "1.3. Part 4 - The issues related to responsibilities". Any suggestions?
- Finally I feel I could use some help with "Title: 1.4 FOSS communities and their ways of collaboration". I couldn't find nice sources for this lesson and its parts.
I am looking forward to your reply and feedback.
Of course all colleagues are welcome to contribute to this discussion, as our collaboration is very useful at this stage. Maybe we see that there are points we need to discuss together in our next telco in 18.09.18.
Thank you all in advance.
Best,
Katerina
--
Katerina Tsinari
EU Projects consultant
Αntoni Tritsi 21, 570 01 Thessaloniki
T:
2310 233 266
Email:
<mailto:elsianli@abe.gr> tsinari(a)abe.gr
URL:
<http://www.abe.gr/> www.abe.gr
Skype:
kathrintheskier83
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
Dear all,
this is a kind reminder.
For those of you who still havent done it, please answer the questionnaire
below so we have enough time to prepare the interim quality report due at
this stage of the project.
We need one response per partner, and currently there are only 4.
Thank you for your cooperation and for all your efforts!
Best wishes,
Francesco
Da: francesco.agresta(a)dlearn.eu [mailto:francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu]
Inviato: lunedì 3 settembre 2018 18:48
A: 'foss4smes-team(a)lists.fsfe.org'
Oggetto: FOSS4SMEs - 12th month evaluation questionnaire and peer reviews
Dear partners,
I hope everything is fine with you and that you all had a nice summer!
In view of the Interim Quality Report due by September, you will find the
12th month evaluation questionnaire at the link below:
è https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YQDHCR2
Only one response per partner is required. Please fill it out by next Monday
(10.09), so we will have time to gather all the results and prepare the
report.
Wish you all a good start of the week!
Best,
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> Descrizione: Descrizione: dlearn
Francesco Agresta
European Project Manager
European Digital Learning Network
Via Domenico Scarlatti, 30
20124 Milano
Mob. +39 3496027623
Email <mailto:francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu> francesco.agresta(a)dlearn.eu
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> www.dlearn.eu
Dear partners,
this is a kind reminder about our survey on the digital footprint. The
research, jointly promoted by the European Digital Learning Network (DLEARN)
and the European Association for Viewers Interests (EAVI), aims to collect
data about citizens awareness as to their digital footprint. This
initiative, indeed, is entirely focused on the European citizens with no
restrictions; so we need your help to spread the word and guarantee the
widest access and participation! Share the surveys link with your friends
and colleagues:
è <http://dlearn.eu/digital-footprint-awareness/>
http://dlearn.eu/digital-footprint-awareness/
The survey is developed in 13 languages, and the final report will be shared
and discussed with the main EU Institutions and distributed free of charge
to all the interested subjects. We aim to give a voice to the EUs citizens
about a relevant issue impacting on our daily life!
Thank you once again for your time and participation!
Best regards,
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> Descrizione: Descrizione: Descrizione: dlearn
Francesco Agresta
European Project Manager
European Digital Learning Network
Via Domenico Scarlatti, 30
20124 Milano
Mob. +39 3496027623
Email <mailto:francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu> francesco.agresta(a)dlearn.eu
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> www.dlearn.eu
Dear partners,
I hope everything is fine with you and that you all had a nice summer!
In view of the Interim Quality Report due by September, you will find the
12th month evaluation questionnaire at the link below:
è https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YQDHCR2
Only one response per partner is required. Please fill it out by next Monday
(10.09), so we will have time to gather all the results and prepare the
report.
Concerning the Peer Review of the Country Reports, first of all I would like
to thank DIT and SKUNI for the work done and the inputs provided.
However, going through your revisions, we noticed that you mostly kept a
proof reading approach to the review, basically doing more than what was
required by this task. Still, the only three parameters upon which the
documents should have been evaluated, i.e. completeness, clarity and
comprehensiveness, are missing.
Ideally, the questions to be asked for each parameter should be:
- Completeness: Are the contents complete and cover the objectives
of the result?
- Clarity: Is the document clear in its meaning, language and
organisation of contents? Also, is the content adapt to the end
users/beneficiaries of the result? Is the content of the document clear and
logic? Are the conclusions drawn consistent and valuable?
- Comprehensiveness: Does it address all the issues described in
the project plan? Is the deliverable/result coherent to the description in
the work program? Is the product suitable the group?
Please note that results from the peer reviews are going to be submitted as
part of the Quality Reports.
As such, a brief review (2 pages max) in accordance with these parameters is
needed for each output. And the same for what concerns the review of IO1.A2
.
You dont need to do all the work again (also because we are only going to
make minor changes, as you discussed last week), but just adapt it in order
to make it look more concise and to the point, responding to the three
qualitative parameters.
Wish you all a good start of the week!
Best,
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> Descrizione: Descrizione: dlearn
Francesco Agresta
European Project Manager
European Digital Learning Network
Via Domenico Scarlatti, 30
20124 Milano
Mob. +39 3496027623
Email <mailto:francesco.agresta@dlearn.eu> francesco.agresta(a)dlearn.eu
<http://www.dlearn.eu/> www.dlearn.eu
Dear colleagues from Dlearn,
this is a kind reminder that we will need the 1st Quality Report of
FOSS4SMEs (Progress analysis and recommendations based on the first two
6-monthly quality checks) by 15.09.18 the latest in order to upload it in
the Mobility Tool for the Interim Report of September.
See p.25 of the MCE Plan for infos: *"Progress analysis and
recommendations: Every 6 months biannual administrative reports will be
prepared for the Consortium, where detailed reporting and the progress
achieved during project execution will be demonstrated. Every partner
should provide the necessary information like: the objectives and the
status of each Output or Task, updates on the dissemination & exploitation
activities, results of the Project Meetings, updates on the cooperation
with other partners and information on the planned and actual person months
per Output or Task. The Quality Manager will provide a specific template to
the partners in order to fill in the aforementioned information. More
information on this can be found in the Quality Plan. "*
Thank you in advance for providing our team with this deliverable. Hope to
hear soon from you.
Best,
Katerina
--
[image: atlantis-logo-for-signatures]
*Katerina Tsinari*
*EU Projects consultant*
*Αntoni Tritsi 21, 570 01 Thessaloniki*
*T:*
*2310 233 266*
*Email:*
*tsinari(a)abe.gr <elsianli(a)abe.gr>*
*URL:*
*www.abe.gr <http://www.abe.gr/>*
*Skype:*
*kathrintheskier83*
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
<https://twitter.com/EngAtlantis>
<https://www.facebook.com/Atlantis-Engineering-SA-141993602518655>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/112248896999799346483>
Hi all,
please find attached my draft of the minutes for today's call.
Please add your comments for changes, especially for the bold point,
where I did not catch the decision.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Sivan
--
Sivan Pätsch
Digital Policy Adviser
OpenForum Europe
tel +32 (0) 2 486 4151
mob +49 (0) 171 282 7689
web http://www.openforumeurope.org
Follow us on Twitter @OpenForumEurope
--
OFE Limited, a private company with liability limited by guarantee
Registered in England and Wales with number 05493935
Registered office: Claremont House, 1 Blunt Road, South Croydon, Surrey
CR2 7PA, UK
Dear all,
I am sending you attached our agenda for our meeting on Monday. Please let
me know, if you want to add sth. Our discussion points are many and I will
try to keep each point as short as possible in order to cover them all
within our given time.
I am looking forward to hear from you and I will send you the Framatalk
link as usual some minutes before our start.
I hope you had nice summer days and are as excited as me to continue the
work on FOSS4SMEs.
Hear you soon - Take care!
Best,
Katerina
--
[image: atlantis-logo-for-signatures]
*Katerina Tsinari*
*EU Projects consultant*
*Αntoni Tritsi 21, 570 01 Thessaloniki*
*T:*
*2310 233 266*
*Email:*
*tsinari(a)abe.gr <elsianli(a)abe.gr>*
*URL:*
*www.abe.gr <http://www.abe.gr/>*
*Skype:*
*kathrintheskier83*
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/atlantis-engineering-sa>
<https://twitter.com/EngAtlantis>
<https://www.facebook.com/Atlantis-Engineering-SA-141993602518655>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/112248896999799346483>
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(a)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.
>
> 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(a)his.se
> Web: http://www.his.se/gamj
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
*Katerina Tsinari*