Re: TSC Meeting Agenda - February 16 2022
Thanks, Jason. I think we are pretty much saying the same thing, only (as usual in ELISA) from 2 different sides of the coin.
Those who are "ok with Linux as is", don't really need any by-products of ELISA. They will continue to do what they are already doing.
For those who need stricter compliance with the standards, it is already clear that full compliance will not happen. So that some iterative process (similar to what Jason describes) will bring Linux closer to what the safety standards expect, leaving it up to the integrator to fill in any remaining gaps for his/her use case. I don't think ELISA can/should do more; but even this will be a great contribution.
My only real concern is that we need to bring in a broader spectrum of contributors, so that we can expand our context for deployment and acceptance. As Jason says, "I don't know if this is exactly what the community needs". The community of Linux users for safety critical applications is enormous, and we have lost them (they attended the early workshops but have since petered out). We need to hear their voice.
Any proposal, Jason's or mine or anyone else's, is an iterative process. But we need to be moving in a clear direction for what the world needs.
From: Smith, Jason <Jason.Smith@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:29 AM
To: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>; Shuah Khan <skhan@...>; devel@...
Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] TSC Meeting Agenda - February 16 2022
My goals are quick wins. There are safety applications using Linux that either don’t need safety certification or whose standards allow Linux to be treated as-is, i.e. software of unknown pedigree. Just small improvements to Linux or relatively small additional pieces of information provided with Linux could offer a lot of value to these developers, allowing them to build safer products. Examples: code improvements, new modules that add or support software safety measures, white papers, manuals, design guides, fault analyses, reports (verification, validation, review, etc.), release notes including known issues, etc. In a way, this is perhaps a scaled-down version of Elana’s (3).
That being said… I don’t know if this is exactly what the community needs.
I think (if we haven’t done so already) we should go out far and wide across not only ELISA but Linux developers in general to find out what they really need.
Are there enough developers of safety applications using Linux that are okay with treating Linux as-is, making it worthwhile to pursue my stated goal?
Or are most folks trying to develop systems for self-driving cars using Linux and ultimately need compliance with ISO 26262?
If the latter is true, start with Elana’s (1). It’s going to be a lot of work.
Thanks, Shuah. Some goals/ideas from my side:
devel@... <devel@...> on behalf of Shuah Khan <skhan@...>
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.