toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Oh my, this is really "fun". But let's converge on a decision.
So we are down to 3 choices here:
- Linux-based components/elements for safety-critical systems
- Linux features for safety-critical systems
- Kernel elements
I'll give participants a few more hours to express their favorite, although please keep in mind – this is only up to the ELISA workshop, after which we may agree on a new name.
My personal favorite is still #2, further details can (and should) be defined by the mission statement. But feel free to speak up, pro or con any option.
From: Philipp Ahmann <philipp.elisa.project@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 9:56 PM
To: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>; development-process@...; devel@...
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] [ELISA Development Process WG] Proposed new WG
Wow, this turns out to be a fun part. Eveybody can say something about the topic, even without full understanding and still can be right and the winner.
Something just came through my mind. We are in ELISA project, which means Enabling Linux in Safety Applications.
So by the project definition we cover Linux and safety application. Our work should focus on this and does not require to have it in a working group name.
Making an example we are not an "Automotive Linux for safety application WG", but the "Automotive WG".
If we take the last proposal "Linux-based components/elements for safety-critical systems" it turns into "components/elements" working group.
Next step will be that people from safety say: "Wait, we do not have an element from the ISO26262 perspective" and the group is called "components WG"
But reading through the mentioned proposal from todays TSC discussion, the WG for now concentrates on Kernel. (I read it in almost every bullet point of the proposal). So Kernel may need to be in the name.
The beauty of adding "Kernel" is to be able to add "elements" again, because therse are "Kernel elements" suddenly, which does not limit it to safety elements and may be wide enough to take subsystems, driver, config, modules or whatever
elements you define to be part of the Kernel. And I am pretty sure, the group will touch all of them. Once the group reaches upper application layers or middleware, we will anyway form another working group as the scope becomes too large.
This brings it to "Kernel elements" or as an alternative "staple". And closing the loop to ELISA you can call it the Linux "kernel elements" working group for safty applications.
I hope this makes sense or directs to another even fancier proposal. Just be creative.
Agreed. But the name is now a bit too long.
Any suggestions how to capture this broader view, with a shorter title?
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 7:30 PM
To: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>;
devel@...; Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>; Shuah Khan <skhan@...>
Subject: Re: [ELISA Development Process WG] Proposed new WG
Yeah. Just noticed after sending email. Linux features scopes it to just the Linux kernel. At least that is how I would read it. Is that the intent or is there a need to look at other components? I think we have to do look at a more complete picture than just
the Linux kernel features for it to meet the ELISA goals.
On 9/29/21 10:27 AM, Elana Copperman wrote:
> Shuah, we have 2 branched email threads now.
> See comments and consensus on Philip's suggestion (Linux features for safety-critical systems).
> What do you think of that? It is also a combi of 2 and 5.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 7:23 PM
> To: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>;
> Albertella <paul.albertella@...>; Shuah Khan
> Subject: Re: [ELISA Development Process WG] Proposed new WG
> Hi Elana,
> On 9/29/21 8:15 AM,
>> Following today's TSC call and discussion, the new WG proposed in
has been tentatively approved. Thanks to all (especially Lukas and Paul) for your support.
>> See below, the preliminary list of suggested names:
>> 1. Linux Developers
>> 2. Linux features for safety
>> 3. Linux features amenable for safety 4. Safety engineering
>> features 5. Linux-based elements for safety-critical systems
> I like parts of 2 & 5.
> 2 as it talks about features and 5 because it includes the Linux kernel features as well as other Linux ecosystem elements that form the platform/basis for the safety critical systems and environments.
> The following describes the scope more clearly.
> Linux-based components/elements for safety-critical systems
> Assuming Linux = Linux kernel in the context. It is clear to me and hope ii will be clear to others (non-ELISA) as well.
> -- Shuah