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

Hi Jonathan, As I understand it, this means that Linux could only ever be considered a safety-related *element*, but surely it could still be part of a safety-critical *system*? However, I agree that

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

Hi Elana, Yes, that's very much my intention! There are really two broad sets of criteria, which can be summarised in the following two questions: 1) What role does the feature have in achieving a saf

Hi, Update on the proposed name for this new WG: We discussed Lukas' concerns and alternative name proposals (see below and [1]) in today's Dev Process WG call and agreed to adopt: Open-Source Enginee

Hi Lukas, Thanks very much for your supportive words and thoughtful feedback! Responses inline below. Agreed! The consensus in the last Dev Process WG meeting was that the name needed to have the word

Hi, The Development Process working group has been discussing proposals for the evolution of the group. The WG has historically attempted to cover a number of goals in a single context, which has occa

Sorry, but I will not be able to join the call today. Paul

Hi Shuah, Can we also talk briefly about the various proposals for new and/or refocussed Working Groups (Evidence, 'new' Dev Process, 'old' Dev Process) that have been raised, please? I know that Elan

Hi, Good point. I'm happy to have a kick-off on Wednesday instead, or alternatively we can schedule something for after the Workshop. Regards, Paul

Hi, This is a tweaked repost of https://lists.elisa.tech/g/safety-architecture/message/503 to a wider audience, as I inadvertently replied to the Safety Architecture WG only. I agree that we need a do

Hi, What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet --- W Shakespeare "Romeo and Juliet" As John MacGregor commented on today's Safety Architecture call, our discuss

Hi Elana, You wrote: Sorry that I didn't reply sooner, and that I've been unaable to join the recent WG calls - my life is excessively busy at the moment! I would be happy to pick up this topic in one

Hi, Thanks John and Pete! Good suggestion. I was planning to kick things off by creating a repo on Github to host and organise our efforts, but I'd be happy to start with a telco. @Min: What is the re

Hi, I recently expanded upon my post about "Safety is a system property" [1] in an article [2], which includes the glossary that I have shared below. There's a saying (attributed to George Bernard Sha

Hi Elana, Safety experts have *plenty* of definitions: the problem is that they don't all agree, and the rest of us have a frustrating tendency to use those terms to mean something subtly (but crucial

Hi, Many of you will have been following an interesting thread [1] that started on the development-process list and then spread to this one. That thread is starting to grow unmanageable in scope, so,

Hi, Topic idea: Short presentation on tools and approaches that ELISA could use to manage formal document creation in Github, building on the previous work done by Jochen Kall and John MacGregor for t

Yes, I'd like to do that :-) This is a good example of Process vs Policy vs Practice (see my previous post [1]), where Practice (as shown by Evidence), does not necessarily comply with a Policy (parti

Hi Shuah, This kind of information is a good example of what I was talking about in my next steps post: 'evidence' that might support a claim that existing Linux processes satisfy some 'criteria' from