Looks good to me too Gab

Hi Elana, 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

Agreed. So that unless we get any other comments - for now, we will continue with Philipp's suggestion, "Linux features for safety-critical systems". Thanks to all (Philip, you get the prize. See

I agree and would support this suggested name 100%. Jason

I like Philipp's suggested name best: Linux features for safety-critical systems Paul

Adding back others (Philipp has some issue with the mailing list – are you registered in these groups?) From: Ahmann, Philipp (ADITG/ESS1) <pahmann@...> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 6:28

I go for 2.5: Linux features for safety-critical systems Best regards, Philipp --- Philipp Ahmann Manager System Software 1 (ADITG/ESS1) Data protection information: We use your contact

I’d prefer #2. Simple and to the point. Jason R. Smith,UL-CFSX Principal Engineer, Robots & Control Systems (CMIT) Distinguished Member of Technical

From my perspective I would go for 5. Right now I don't have other names suggestions Regards Gab

I think this was in the domain of Paul's new WG, and the basis for collaboration with his new flavor of the Dev Process WG.

Following today's TSC call and discussion, the new WG proposed in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1557IyH66OlMJHklNg5wceKmJLQgavBUwoYyB2Jib0vU/edit# has been tentatively approved. Thanks to all

+1 I didn't want to be the first one to say it, but this question applies to all Linux features or mechanisms. Like - SELinux - seccomp - BPF - eBPF - and, and, and... This makes enabling Linux to

New submission to the ELISA Workshop Fall 2021 CFP. Please find below the details. Email addresspaul.albertella@...Primary Speaker InformationPrimary Speaker Full NamePaul AlbertellaPrimary Speaker

Hi, Regarding the Priyanka and Bruce's presentation, I think the pre-requisite for using namespaces and cgroups for FFI is to "qualify" these mechanisms. This means showing that they fulfill their

Hi Shuah, hi Min, as Elana pointed it out to me today: Can we add to today's agenda to have a smaller subgroup describe recommendations and policies for email-based discussions, and work towards

<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: Agree. That is a really good idea. We need to establish proper recommendations and policies for well-structured email-based discussions. I will reach out to Shuah

Yes agreed Sorry, I replied to Paul and missed the follows up from Elana and Jochen. However I also think it is a good topic to elaborate on. Thanks Gab

Thanks, Jochen. This is excellent. We should continue this discussion, as proposed in the parallel thread.

Hi All Given that the topic was presented in a micro conference the deck was intended to trigger an open discussion rather than showing results. I agree with everything that Paul wrote down below and

Hi everyone, just a quality of life service for those interested, the recording of the talk can be found here: https://youtu.be/iaK_wcL1ekY?t=12393 Jochen -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jochen