DAPSI call deadline 20/01/2021

Other project benefiting from the grant voiced the same concern:

Seconded. But for the both the reasons above and that Teams works extremely badly on Apple hardware…


seconded. We also had troubles with Teams on Linux and had to revert to mobile phone eventually.

and the organizer replied:


I really appreciate your concern. I think that you are fighting for a great cause!

I will be happy to try a new service. I took a look, and it seems a pretty easy platform to use. I will update the invitation with the new link:

It should be OK with this link, right? I could not find any option for scheduling a specific time and date.


1 Like

Mail received today:

Dear fedeproxy team,

I send to you a detailed document explaining the evaluation process that will take place in September to assess you progress and do the payments accordingly.

If you have any question or you think an adjustment is needed for the technical KPIs, you can contact the technical coaches: Najmehsadat and Abderrahmane in cc of this email.

If you have any question for the business KPIs, you can contact the business coach: Augustin in cc of this email.

For general questions, you can contact me or my colleagues Daniel and Natalia.

Best regards,

DAPSI_Round2_PAYMENTS_final version_210627 - 11fedeproxy.pdf (1.1 MB)

I replied today:

Dear [redacted],

The proposal template proposal reads under the “2/ Excellence/innovation” section, I quote "Explain the exploitation potential of your project: if you plan a Commercial exploitation, non-commercial but with a relevant contribution to the internet community, or other.

In the fedeproxy proposal “2/ Excellence/innovation” there is no commercial exploitation or business mentioned, only the “relevant contribution to the internet community”. The fedeproxy proposal does not mention any commercial or business application anywhere else in the context of the call.

In the original call for applicants guidelines the page 21 reads, I quote: “These KPIs will measure the technological advance, the progress in the business strategy if any, but also the commitment and involvement of the teams (i.e. attending periodic call meetings with the coaches, meeting the deadlines for reporting, etc).” with an emphasis, on my part, on “if any” since fedeproxy does not include a business part.

As a consequence it is my understanding that the fedeproxy project is not required to meet any business KPI since it does not plan a commercial exploitation and that it was selected based on a proposal that does not include anything related to business or commercial exploitation.

Would you please be so kind as to confirm the fedeproxy will not be graded based on business KPI as presented in the document you sent in this email?


Response received today:

Hi Loic

thank you for your email. We perfectly understand your worries.

The grid with KPIs was validated by the European Commission and it applies to all the selected projects.

The situation you mentioned I know it as soon as we already discussed together and a had a clear feedback from your coach [redacted], my colleague.

As soon as you have participate to all the sessions and the asked deliverables has been done we consider that on the “business part”, even if is not necessary the main point in your proposal, the work has been started.

I definitely hope that in the future strategy of the development of your project you will take in consideration all this inputs that you received.

It’s very important because those points you still have to present in September in front of our jury (half business and half tech).

All my best


Replied today:


Thanks for your quick reply, I’m sure we will resolve this issue :slight_smile:

On 06/07/2021 09:10, [redacted] wrote:

Hi Loic

thank you for your email. We perfectly understand your worries.
The grid with KPIs was validated by the European Commission and it applies to all the selected projects.

There must be a provision to exempt non-commercial proposals from business KPIs: they are mutually exclusive. The fedeproxy proposal is non-commercial and was accepted as such. The call was explicitly open to non-commercial projects.

The situation you mentioned I know it as soon as we already discussed together and a had a clear feedback from your coach, my colleague.

Yes. And we had fruitful discussions on how to reach out to the potential fedeproxy user base, in a non-commercial context. We did not discuss anything related to business because fedeproxy is a non-commercial project.

As soon as you have participate to all the sessions and the asked deliverables has been done we consider that on the “business part”, even if is not necessary the main point in your proposal, the work has been started.

On that occasion and in writing (mail thread “DAPSI Session 3 and pre work”, June 5th, 2021) I objected that the requested deliverable are not meaningful for the fedeproxy project, for the same reason I’m objecting today. For instance the deliverable had items such as “CUSTOMER SEGMENT”, “Target customer”, “Path to customers” which have no meaning in a non-commercial environment. The participation to the sessions were mandatory, reason why we attended. But the content of the sessions were irrelevant to fedeproxy because they exclusively focused on business and did not contain anything related to non-commercial projects.

I definitely hope that in the future strategy of the development of your project you will take in consideration all this inputs that you received.
It’s very important because those points you still have to present in September in front of our jury (half business and half tech).

It would be a contradiction for a non-commercial project to be evaluated based on business KPI, because business and non-commercial are mutually exclusive. How can we resolve this?


In preparation to the mentoring session scheduled tomorrow I sent the following mail to the mentor:


After receiving the business KPI grid from the DAPSI organization this week I better understand why you insisted on discussing the “business case” during tomorrow’s meeting. I very much look forward to our discussion but I would like to clearly state in writing that I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the scope of the fedeproxy project. This was also discussed with [redacted] in the context of another mail thread.

The fedeproxy project is non-commercial and therefore does not have any business aspect: the two are mutually exclusive. The DAPSI call for proposal explicitly allows for non-commercial proposals and the fedeproxy proposal that was accepted does not contain any business aspect. As a consequence fedeproxy is, by definition, not subject to the business KPI grid.

The logic that you proposed in the business case gave me an idea that is very valuable and extremely simple: use quantitative measures to convince existing forges to give fedeproxy a try. I developed this idea in a draft communication plan[0]. Thank you for that!

Here is the agenda you proposed with links to the relevant resources to help with our discussion tomorrow:


[0] DRAFT: communication plan

The technical evaluation bullet list extracted from DAPSI_Round2_PAYMENTS_final version_210627 - 11fedeproxy.pdf (1.1 MB)

One comprehensive list has been defined for all third parties. In order to define such a list, all
deliverables/milestones from the proposals have been collected and grouped into high-level categories
for a semi-common evaluation systems for all the projects.

  • For documents, research reports etc:
    • Is it well documented?
    • Does the document respect GDPR compliance requirements?
    • Does the document describe the functionalities for the considered subdomain (Service Portability, Data Interoperability and compatibility, Security and Privacy)?
    • Are the state of the art effort studied and going to be exploited (standards, existing tools, analysis studies, etc.)?
  • For use case documents:
    • The quality and completeness of the identified stakeholders
    • The procedure of user requirements collection
  • Functional & Technical Requirement / Software Development Roadmap:
    • Are you satisfied with data exchange protocol e.g. mapping?
    • Are the existing solutions going to be exploited and customized? E.g., extensions of the existing API, extension for SOLID, etc.
    • Are you satisfied with data description and metadata, e.g. data catalog, W3C vocabularies?
  • For architecture:
    • Does the architecture answer the requirements set by the customer?
    • Does the architecture include functions of the considered subdomain (Service Portability, Data Interoperability and compatibility, Security and Privacy)?
    • Does the architecture consider the well-established specifications e.g. data model
  • For UI/Prototype design Qualitative assessment:
    • Attractiveness: Overall impression of the product. Do you like or dislike it?
    • Perspicuity: Is it easy to get familiar with the product and to learn how to use it?
    • Efficiency: Can you solve their tasks without unnecessary effort? Does it react fast?
    • Dependability: Do you feel in control of the interaction? Is it secure and predictable?
    • Stimulation: Is it exciting and motivating to use the product? Is it fun to use?
    • Novelty: Is the design of the product creative? Does it catch your interest?
  • For prototype/implementation:
    • How many functionalities have been implemented?
    • are all the functionalities considered in the “functional requirement analysis” phase implemented properly?
    • Are you satisfied with the Open-source framework considered?
  • Does the design respect all GDPR compliance requirements?
  • What is the quality of data model implemented (API, standards, solid, providers, interfaces, etc.)
  • Is the communication secured by the system?
    • Are the encryption and authentication well-maintained?
      If applicable:
    • Is any access control procedure implemented?
    • Easy to deploy on any device?
    • How is the final prototype tested? what is the Technology Readiness Level?
    • How many transactions per second can the software manage?
    • What is the response time?
    • What additional contexts need to be considered in the future?

Mail sent today:


The KPIs were discussed today during the mentoring session with [redacted] (cc’ed). Since one of the primary objectives of the mentoring sessions is to define the KPIs applicable to the project, we worked out KPIs suitable to non-commercial projects and fedeproxy in particular. Here is the proposal that emerged, for your review:

Fedproxy validation:

  • Non-Commercial validation
  • Problem and solution (8 points out of 40)
    • The solution is trying to solve an identified problem
    • Description of the solution
    • Global overview
    • Why you?
  • Significant contribution to the internet community (8 points out of 40)
    • The size of the Free Software developer community
    • The size of the internet community impacted by the Free Software developer community
    • Does the targeted internet community exist?
    • Is the emergence of a de-facto communication standard between forges possible?
    • Is the communication standard presented in a well identified and analysed network (developers, forge maintainers, forge authors)?
  • Cooperation (8 points out of 40)
    • Present your cooperative environment
    • Which are the main actors willing to cooperate (forge users, forges instances, forges authors)?
    • Main actors description: deep description of 3 principal actors
    • Conclusions after analysing the actors
  • Usage value and adoption (10 points out of 40)
    • Communication plan
    • Number of support from individuals or organizations published publicly after Phase I
    • How does it contribute to the decentralization of forges?
    • How does it help forge ensure durability of the user data?
    • How does it reduce the risk of forge maintainers under the RGPD?
  • Execution (6 points out of 40)
    • Financial planning and 18 months forecast

Instead of the generic template:

  • Business Validation
  • Problem and solution (8 points out of 40)
    • The solution is trying to solve an identified problem
    • Description of the solution
    • Global overview
    • Why you?
  • Market (8 points out of 40)
    • "The market size and the precise market they address
    • Does the market exist? Do they give enough details?"
    • "Targets
    • Are they clearly described? Why those?"
    • "The business is presented in a well identified and analysed network
    • (suppliers, clients, partners, legal framework)"
  • Competition (8 points out of 40)
    • "Present your competitive environment
    • Is it highly fragmented or concentrated? Who are the main actors? Direct or indirect competitors?"
    • "Main actors description
    • Deep description of 3 principal actors: size, offer, strategy, development stage
    • Did they raise any funds?"
    • Conclusions after analysing the competition
  • Sales (10 points out of 40)
    • Sales plan
    • Number of Letter of Intent/Pilots signed after Phase 1
    • Presentation and explanation of the price
    • "Details on the commercial release
    • Justification of the number of clients/users: what is the financial effort to realise this
      action? How do they realise their customer acquisition?"
    • Presentation and explanation of the Business Model
  • Execution (6 points out of 40)
    • “70 % Milestones achieved as per proposal”
    • “Financial planning and 18 months forecast”


The minutes of today’s meeting with the mentor, as sent today by the mentor:

Minutes of July 7th meeting

· Responses to Dapsi KPIs should be made in the case of Fedeproxy as for an activity to build an open source standard for the Forges operation.

· The value is twofold :

o for the users of the Forges it lies in time saved (in transferring project from a Forge to another or in contributing to projects in various Forges; an value assessment can be made although roughly and subject to discussion of pairs to be further refined (Loïc will draft some figures)

o for Forges themselves, it lies in risk avoided or reduced (risk of data loss or of security breach, better covered within a federation of Forges rather than assumed separately)

· Communication with Forges about FedeProxy :

o Contacts initiated with Framagit, April and Heptapod, with warm welcome and OK to assess FedeProxy

o Proposal develop blog/white paper explaining FedeProxy , the problem it solve and its benefits, communication to be relayed from allies (devleopers-prescribers, or Forges like those mentioned above)

· Dapsi evaluation in September raise questions :

o Is presentation made before evaluation ?

o Is evaluation made based on the KPI grid or on an additional presentation document ?

Actions next steps

· Answer to Loïc’s questions about evaluation : [redacted] will ask [redacted], before Friday

· Next meeting : Proposal for August 4th, 11 to 12:00 am : [redacted] to confirm and send invitation

The GDPR webinar started, with a bit of confusion because the link was not updated in the calendar. The sound is good, the presentation shows and people (16) are here, with video turned off.



1 Like

Mail received today:

Dear all, I would like to invite you to the third technical training workshop organized by Fraunhofer IAIS. This time, my colleague, [redacted], will present International Data Spaces as a decentralized Platform for Data Sharing with a special focus on trustworthiness, data protection and data sovereignty. There is a lot of online documentation about the International Data Spaces, ranging from political presentation to technical in-detail descriptions. To get a little taste about the topic, without going too far in detail, I collected some promotion materials for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF0f2vHUwF8 https://internationaldataspaces.org/ In case you had a look before next Friday, you can raise your questions and doubts during the workshop. The attendance is mandatory. Regards, [redacted] ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meetinghttps://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3Ameeting_NDhiMTgzOTgtODYwMC00ZmNmLTg4OGUtOTJiYzhhMzlkNTEy%40thread.v2/0?context={"Tid"%3A"f930300c-c97d-4019-be03-add650a171c4"%2C"Oid"%3A"bc037ef7-d4fd-4609-a595-292488e47c1f"} Or call in (audio only) +49 69 365057687,208162228#tel:+4969365057687,,208162228# Germany, Frankfurt am Main Phone Conference ID: 208 162 228# Find a local numberhttps://dialin.teams.microsoft.com/085701d9-f9e2-4d72-9bea-e71958f3a717?id=208162228 | Reset PINhttps://mysettings.lync.com/pstnconferencing [https://www.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/zv/fhg.png] Learn Morehttps://aka.ms/JoinTeamsMeeting | Meeting optionshttps://teams.microsoft.com/meetingOptions/?organizerId=bc037ef7-d4fd-4609-a595-292488e47c1f&tenantId=f930300c-c97d-4019-be03-add650a171c4&threadId=19_meeting_NDhiMTgzOTgtODYwMC00ZmNmLTg4OGUtOTJiYzhhMzlkNTEy@thread.v2&messageId=0&language=en-US

Sent to the organizer of the next technical DAPSI workshop

Hello !
It looks like the switch to Jisti, a free software, was a success!
Is there a reason to not use Jisti for the next workshop ?

The organizer answered:

Yes, the presenter feels more comfortable with Teams, I can not force him to use Jisti :blush:

Then i resent the same previous email with everyone CCed (sent in two batch because i made first a typo).

1 Like

Mail received today:

1 Like

Replied today:

Hi [redacted],

This is quite clear, thank you.

I just have one question regarding GDPR, since it is your specialty. Fedeproxy technical deliverable is a stateless self-hostable software focused on data portability and interoperability. In other words, people will install it from here https://pypi.org/project/fedeproxy/ and run it on their own infrastructure: this is the self-hostable aspect. When it runs, the software is stateless: it does not store any data, it reads/write data on the fly for interoperability purposes, from and to software forges such as https://github.com/. The fedeproxy project is non commercial and will not run an online service, except for experimental and demonstration purposes, as described in the grant application.

In this context which aspect of GDPR be addressed?

Thanks a lot for your help!

1 Like

I did not hear from the mentor about the upcoming meeting August 4th nor about the clarification as to what is expected and sent the following today as a reminder:

Hi [redacted],

I hope you are well. I very much look forward to our next meeting on August 4th and hope you got a chance to discuss with Augustin. Our discussion about the KPI was inspiring and the outcome is something I can relate to.


@pilou I’m worried about the business KPI: there has been no confirmation that fedeproxy will be graded based on the non-commercial KPI that were defined as a result of the work with the mentor.

Unless there is some kind of reply by August 4th, 2021, I’ll draft a message that states

  • the non-commercial KPIs as described here were not confirmed
  • the technical KPIs were not covered during the mentoring sessions
  • according to the signed agreement fedeproxy can therefore only be graded based on the content of grant proposal and the non-commercial KPIs drafted during the mentoring sessions

And send the message to the grant organization office to get a formal acknowledgement that they received it since they do not reply via email.

1 Like

This morning, I followed the 3rd DAPSI Technical Workshop about IDS & Data Sovereignty.

  • This videoconference required to use the Microsoft Teams Debian package (there was no sound when joining the meeting using Firefox).
  • There wasn’t an attendee list.
    Some slides:
1 Like

Received today:

Dear all,

I am sharing with you the slides of our third technical workshop. In case you are interested in more materials and references please don’t hesitate to contact me.


IDSA and Data Sovereignty.pdf (1.5 MB)

Received today:

Dear all,

From TETRA there is another nice opportunity to your NGI participants in order to showcase the project and network with relevant parties:

Infoshare is the biggest tech conference in the CEE region creating an ecosystem where technologies are combined with business. Every year, thousands of attendees come to Gdańsk. Among them, startups, investors, corporate representatives, programmers and marketers. It is a solid dose of knowledge and business – several hundred leading speakers from around the world, nearly 200 presentations and workshops, several thematic scenes each year.

Infoshare is also a series of side events that are an opportunity to establish new contacts and exchange business experiences. The conference is an ideal place for companies at an early stage of development. Dedicated Matchmaking tool allows you to arrange individual meetings with investors and establish important business relationships. Each year, the Startup Contest accompanying the conference gathers near 700 startups competing for prizes totally worth EUR 30,000 in cash.

This 2021 the event will take place on October 14-15, 2021.

TETRA will cover the conference fee for NGI teams for which Infoshare is a match. If you have interest, please let me know.