Alex, officially and formally, I cannot talk for the ELISA project (Enabling Linux In Safety Applications) by the Linux Foundation and I do not think there is anyone that can confidently do so on such

Dear all, as some participants and listeners on the ELISA mailing lists contacted me with questions in private on the general terms of the email discussions, I would like to share the general terms we

Oscar, the tool classification only makes sense within a specific safety argumentation and that holds only in ONE specific (assumed) system context, right? So, the conclusion within that defined proce

<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: I understand your struggle. Yes, it has been classified and qualified for the purpose it contributes to a safety argumentation. The initial interest was to identi

Dear all, as discussed yesterday, I request review of the three studies located at: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1H3-z9iXuoYvTFI6Y8jHprVD_P6Z1SiHq You may provide feedback by email refer

I am also in favor of #2 "Linux features for safety-critical systems" (long title). Do not be surprised if people shorten it to "Linux features WG" (that does not hurt), on the webpage, for the mailin

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 stori

<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

<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: Okay, thanks. Now, I understand why we get stuck. Of course, if we come to the conclusion that a fully qualified Linux kernel (whatever that means; I have no clea

(snip) I am sorry. I am confused and I do not understand. Let us assume: A new feature for the kernel, i.e., a feature extending the kernel's functionality, has been developed in a reasonably systemat

I will create a set of survey questions to collect some feedback on that in a structured way. Lukas

Hi Min, I got feedback from the authors of the publications, and they are fine with publication on the elisa.tech webpage. So, please publish them on elisa.tech. Best regards, Lukas

<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: Elana, enjoy your vacation! This email thread can wait another few days until we continue. Lukas

My question was really looking for more practical answers here. E.g., just for the purpose of illustration: Although I understand what kind of changes to the memory management system might help verify

<Elana.Copperman@...> wrote: I am all in for prizes! That is a good way to see some nice suggestions... Great! You are addressing my concern. So, I think this can be a successful WG, and we s

<paul.albertella@...> wrote: Reasoning makes perfect sense, but the outcome is simply misguiding, blame the English language for it, but I guess that thing is even older and even more brok

Upps... missed a critical word in the sentence above: ...and that this does NOT just end up creating a wish list of ambitious kernel features that are impossible to implement. Note to myself: Read bef

I am a big fan of this working group and I think it deserves some exploration. The key challenge I currently see is that "developers of safety critical systems" (which---by historic incident---have a

<paul.albertella@...> wrote: Paul, thanks for pushing this forward and not giving up. On the scope, I fully agree with your proposal for a new working group; you can probably find some ema

Dear TSC, now that the policies for publications on the elisa.tech webpage are settled, I would like to propose the following publications to be put on the elisa.tech webpage (if the original authors