Hi, I would suggest to add anotehr category: Technology provider, where we can include those partners which expertise in the different technologies required for the project and they will provide to the project. Besides, I do not see the difference between tool suite development and framework development. Olli, please could you clarify this? Thank you. FYI, I have also uploaded to Dropbox an update of section 1 taking into account the comments from the meeting. Regarding the spanish industrial partner, ACCIONA has answered that they cannot collaborate (they cannot provide a use case for ecoPREMISES) so we are contacting another partner called FCC. I will keep you inform. Regards, -Leire - De: ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ecop-poct-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Olli Vistbacka Enviado el: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:55 AM Para: ecop-poct@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Asunto: [ecop-poct] Categorizing partner roles - comments requested Hi, In order to provide evaluators as readable and understandable PO as possible, I feel that all the partner roles should be categorized somehow in section 5 - 5.1 consortium as a whole. It would make the text more compact and provide a simplified overall picture of the consortium composition. It would also give us the whole consortium-wise as well as contry-wise an overall picture of who's doing what and are there too much overlaps or missing elements. In addition to role category, each partner should have in the table a short elaborative description of its responsibilities. I drafted a list of categories: Tool suite development Framework development Test & verification Pilot & field test Please comment: - Missing major categories - category descriptions - What should be the level of detail in categories? Should development be broken into sub-categories for instance? br, -- Olli Vistbacka Project Manager, M.Sc. (Eng.) Phone +358 40 569 1043 olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:olli.vistbacka@xxxxxxxxx> http://www.hermia.fi/in_english/