Gabriele Paoloni
Hi All
On my side I am fully supportive of Elana's goals and, WRT to these goals. I think that what Paul
pointed out in the email below is the basis to achieve such goals.
Thanks Gab
Hi,
I support many of the previous suggestions, but would like to add the
following goals:
1) Document the working assumptions (and provisional conclusions) that
underpin ELISA discussions, to provide context for new contributors -
and confirm what we actually have consensus about!
2) Establish a 'contribution' process for material that is intended to
form part of ELISA deliverables, including contribution and review
criteria (e.g. must be able to identify the contributor and what they
contributed, must be peer-reviewed).
3) Establish a 'publication' process for making ELISA deliverables
(including formal draft or acknowledged incomplete versions) available
to a wider audience, including review and approval criteria
I've previously proposed that we could best accomplish 2 and 3 by using
ELISA's GitHub repos to manage storage, updates, review and publication
(i.e. merge into a protected main branch) in a consistent way. Jochen
already has a Contribution Workflow [1] for the Automotive WG that we
could use as a starting point. We could extend this to make it more
accessible for those unfamiliar with GitHub.
I think it's important to establish and use this kind of process as a
matter of course, even if we collaborate on drafting input material
elsewhere, because it is all too easy to lose track of documents on
Google Drive, and newcomers have almost no hope of finding them.
To make published material in a GitHub repo more accessible, we have
talked before (and John MacGregor shared a PoC) about using GitHub Pages
to generate web-based documentation and/or PDFs.
regards,
Paul
[1]
https://github.com/elisa-tech/wg-automotive/blob/master/README.md#contribution-workflow
On 15/02/2022 07:30, Philipp Ahmann wrote:
> Hello Shuah, all,
>
> although, I have a customer meeting during the first half of the TSC and
> can onlyjoin later,I would like to contribute my goal/success ideasg for
> the year. I believe they also fit to what has been contributed so far.
>
> We have different puzzle pieces within ELISA which we call "work
> groups". This was well visualized in more than one workshop. Even trials
> have been made how these work groups should interact. However, I fear
> that the binding of work groups is still very weak. Use case work groups
> should contribute to the other work groups and provide input and vise
> versa. We set goals and give regular reports in TSC meetings where we
> are within the work group, but we should also report and focus what we
> have done to serve the other work groups. Which impact does our work
> make to the other work groups? If we cannot show how how the different
> groups interact (on engineering not powerpoint level), we will never be
> able to provide a complete picture. Because one thing is for sure in my
> perspective: We will need all the existing groups to enable Linux in
> safety applications.
>
> My proposal and therefore goal is: Make both, the medical and automotive
> work group use cases, ready to serve as a proper blue print for further
> use cases during this year. Show where the gaps are, but map existing
> work packages/artifacts from other groups and link to show how these
> gaps will be filled. The material generated should show how the work
> products of all work group interact with each other, and that medical
> devices and automotive are aligned in the way of documentation, so you
> can really call results a blueprint. We need to generate the big
> picture, make on-boarding easier and generate transparency where support
> is needed by enabling direct "picking up of tasks" from a roadmap and
> current cycle.
>
> We should also try to reach out to further contributors to get member
> commitment, but for this we need to have proper material and demands
> declared.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philipp
>
> ---
>
>
> Am Mo., 14. Feb. 2022 um 17:24 Uhr schrieb Walt Miner
> <wminer@... <mailto:wminer@...>>:
>
> I think I am aligned with Elena's goals. We have been working
> towards Goal 1 in the Automotive WG, but progress is slow,
> especially given the fact that a number of participants have dropped
> out or will be dropping out shortly. I will work with the AGL
> community to try to push for more involvement from that community
> (aligns with Goal 2) and we have a use case (Instrument Cluster
> tell-tale) that is seemingly simple, but provides a rich set of
> implementation details to work through and eventually get to Goal 3.
>
> I will try to participate in this week's TSC meeting. Generally
> AGL has a meeting scheduled at the same time that makes it
> impossible for me to attend, but I feel that we are at an important
> junction in the ELISA project so I will figure out how to attend the
> next few TSC meetings.
>
> Regards,
> Walt
>
>
> Walt Miner
> AGL Community Manager
> The Linux Foundation
>
> Visit us at:
> www.automotivegradelinux.org <http://www.automotivegradelinux.org>
> lists.automotivelinux.org <http://lists.automotivelinux.org>
> www.linuxfoundation.org <http://www.linuxfoundation.org>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:52 AM <elana.copperman@...
> <mailto:elana.copperman@...>> wrote:
>
> I stand corrected. Perhaps more accurate:____
>
> /Those who are "ok with Linux as is", /believe that they /don't
> really need any by-products of ELISA. They will continue to do
> what they are already doing, /unless we communicate the benefits
> and feasibility./.____/
>
> __ __
>
> __ __
>
> *From:* Smith, Jason <Jason.Smith@...
> <mailto:Jason.Smith@...>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:49 PM
> *To:* Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...
> <mailto:Elana.Copperman@...>>; Shuah Khan
> <skhan@... <mailto:skhan@...>>;
> devel@...
> *Subject:* RE: [ELISA Technical Community] TSC Meeting Agenda -
> February 16 2022____
>
> __ __
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL**:*Do not click any links or open any
> attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
> safe.____
>
> Hi Elana,____
>
> __ __
>
> Just wanted to respond to one of your comments:____
>
> __ __
>
> /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.____/
>
> __ __
>
> I don’t believe this is entirely true.____
>
> __ __
>
> More clearly communicating potential shortcomings of Linux to
> these folks will enable them to better design a system around
> Linux to make that overall system safer.____
>
> __ __
>
> *Jason R. Smith, UL-CFSX
> <https://www.ul.com/services/functional-safety-certification-and-training-program>*
> Principal Engineer, Robots & Control Systems (CMIT)____
>
> /Distinguished Member of Technical Staff____/
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> UL LLC
> 333 Pfingsten Road
> Northbrook, IL 60062-2096 US
> T: 1.847.664.1352
> W: https://www.ul.com <https://www.ul.com>____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:* Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...
> <mailto:Elana.Copperman@...>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2022 1:41 AM
> *To:* Smith, Jason <Jason.Smith@...
> <mailto:Jason.Smith@...>>; Shuah Khan
> <skhan@... <mailto:skhan@...>>;
> devel@... <mailto:devel@...>
> *Subject:* RE: [ELISA Technical Community] 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.____
>
> Regards____
>
> Elana____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:* Smith, Jason <Jason.Smith@...
> <mailto:Jason.Smith@...>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:29 AM
> *To:* Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...
> <mailto:Elana.Copperman@...>>; Shuah Khan
> <skhan@... <mailto:skhan@...>>;
> devel@... <mailto:devel@...>
> *Subject:* RE: [ELISA Technical Community] TSC Meeting Agenda -
> February 16 2022____
>
> __ __
>
> *EXTERNAL EMAIL**:*Do not click any links or open any
> attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is
> safe.____
>
> 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.____
>
> __ __
>
> Jason____
>
> __ __
>
> *From:* devel@... <mailto:devel@...>
> <devel@... <mailto:devel@...>> *On
> Behalf Of *elana.copperman via lists.elisa.tech
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 09, 2022 9:37 AM
> *To:* Shuah Khan <skhan@...
> <mailto:skhan@...>>; devel@...
> <mailto:devel@...>
> *Subject:* Re: [ELISA Technical Community] TSC Meeting Agenda -
> February 16 2022____
>
> __ __
>
> Thanks, Shuah. Some goals/ideas from my side:____
>
> 1. To establish a framework for communication and collaboration
> between Linux kernel developers/maintainers, safety experts
> and designers/developers of Linux based safety critical
> systems. Without broader representation and communication,
> the work products of ELISA cannot have a context for
> deployment and acceptance.____
> 2. ELISA is a project of the Linux Foundation. To leverage
> this umbrella, learn from its strong points, and help to
> improve the weaker points towards the long-term goal of
> integrating Linux successfully in safety critical systems.____
> 3. Work products (actual kernel patches) which will support the
> original ELISA mission statement: to define and maintain a
> common set of elements, processes and tools that can be
> incorporated into Linux-based, safety-critical systems
> amenable to safety certification.____
>
> Regards____
>
> Elana____
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*devel@... <mailto:devel@...>
> <devel@... <mailto:devel@...>> on
> behalf of Shuah Khan <skhan@...
> <mailto:skhan@...>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 9, 2022 5:20 PM
> *To:* devel@... <mailto:devel@...>
> <devel@... <mailto:devel@...>>
> *Cc:* Shuah Khan <skhan@...
> <mailto:skhan@...>>
> *Subject:* [ELISA Technical Community] TSC Meeting Agenda -
> February 16 2022 ____
>
> ____
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments
> unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> All,
>
> Let's meet next week to discuss alignment on goals and what success
> looks like. Please respond to this thread to add you 1 or 2 items
> you consider important to achieve ELISA goals and make the project
> successful.
>
> I will compile the items and share the consolidated list before the
> meeting.
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
>
>
> ____
>
> __
>
>
> This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose,
> use, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or
> attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender by reply e-mail,
> and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters
> Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for
> any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this message or
> any attachments.____
>
>
> This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose,
> use, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or
> attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender by reply e-mail,
> and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters
> Laboratories Inc. and its affiliates disclaim all liability for
> any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in this message or
> any attachments.____
>
>
|
