|
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 (especially Lukas and Paul) for your support.
See below, the preliminary list of suggested names:
-
Linux Developers
-
Linux features for safety
-
Linux features amenable for safety
-
Safety engineering features
-
Linux-based elements for safety-critical systems
-
Applying Linux features
Actually I don't really prefer any of these names, so would offer a prize to the winning name, allowing additional suggestions to be raised.
Next steps:
-
All those subscribed to this mailing list are cordially invited to vote on (or suggest any new) names for the new WG.
-
Elana will extend a call for collaboration in tomorrow's session at the Linux Security Summit, including a call for participation in the newly formed WG. I would ask to have a tentative agreement (via email) on the name for the WG by tomorrow if possible,
the name can be updated later before meetings actually begin.
-
Elana will issue a proposal to present the new WG at the upcoming ELISA workshop (proposal deadline is this coming Friday). The proposal will be high level, and we have agreed to continue this discussion at the next TSC meeting to refine / clarify some of
the remaining open points. However, the basic format and concept as summarized in the WG proposal (see above link) is not expected to be changed in any major way. For example, we need to agree on how to avoid misunderstanding and provide a clear disclaimer
on any safety claims related to the technical suggestions made by the WG. In addition (as discussed today), all technical features will be clarified within the context of a specific use case, while at the same time understanding the limitations of NDAs and
exposure of proprietary details of business applications.
Regards
Elana
|
|
|
Gabriele Paoloni
From my perspective I would go for 5. Right now I don't have other names suggestions
Regards Gab
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 (especially Lukas and Paul) for your support.
See below, the preliminary list of suggested names:
-
Linux Developers
-
Linux features for safety
-
Linux features amenable for safety
-
Safety engineering features
-
Linux-based elements for safety-critical systems
-
Applying Linux features
Actually I don't really prefer any of these names, so would offer a prize to the winning name, allowing additional suggestions to be raised.
Next steps:
-
All those subscribed to this mailing list are cordially invited to vote on (or suggest any new) names for the new WG.
-
Elana will extend a call for collaboration in tomorrow's session at the Linux Security Summit, including a call for participation in the newly formed WG. I would ask to have a tentative agreement (via email) on the name for the WG by tomorrow if possible,
the name can be updated later before meetings actually begin.
-
Elana will issue a proposal to present the new WG at the upcoming ELISA workshop (proposal deadline is this coming Friday). The proposal will be high level, and we have agreed to continue this discussion at the next TSC meeting to refine / clarify some of
the remaining open points. However, the basic format and concept as summarized in the WG proposal (see above link) is not expected to be changed in any major way. For example, we need to agree on how to avoid misunderstanding and provide a clear disclaimer
on any safety claims related to the technical suggestions made by the WG. In addition (as discussed today), all technical features will be clarified within the context of a specific use case, while at the same time understanding the limitations of NDAs and
exposure of proprietary details of business applications.
Regards
Elana
|
|
|
I’d prefer #2. Simple and to the point.
Jason R. Smith,
UL-CFSX
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: devel@... <devel@...>
On Behalf Of Gabriele Paoloni via lists.elisa.tech
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:12 AM
To: Elana Copperman <elana.copperman@...>
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
From my perspective I would go for 5. Right now I don't have other names suggestions
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 (especially Lukas and Paul) for your support.
See below, the preliminary list of suggested names:
-
Linux Developers
-
Linux features for safety
-
Linux features amenable for safety
-
Safety engineering features
-
Linux-based elements for safety-critical systems
-
Applying Linux features
Actually I don't really prefer any of these names, so would offer a prize to the winning name, allowing additional suggestions to be raised.
Next steps:
-
All those subscribed to this mailing list are cordially invited to vote on (or suggest any new) names for the new WG.
-
Elana will extend a call for collaboration in tomorrow's session at the Linux Security Summit, including a call for participation in the newly formed WG. I would ask to have a tentative agreement (via email) on the name for the WG by tomorrow if possible,
the name can be updated later before meetings actually begin.
-
Elana will issue a proposal to present the new WG at the upcoming ELISA workshop (proposal deadline is this coming Friday). The proposal will be high level, and we have agreed to continue this discussion at the next TSC meeting to refine / clarify some of
the remaining open points. However, the basic format and concept as summarized in the WG proposal (see above link) is not expected to be changed in any major way. For example, we need to agree on how to avoid misunderstanding and provide a clear disclaimer
on any safety claims related to the technical suggestions made by the WG. In addition (as discussed today), all technical features will be clarified within the context of a specific use case, while at the same time understanding the limitations of NDAs and
exposure of proprietary details of business applications.
Regards
Elana
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.
|
|
|
Philipp Ahmann
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 information
and e-mail communication to process your inquiry and for internal and possibly tax documentation purposes. Your information will only be passed on to third parties if this is necessary to carry out your request or if we are legally obliged to do so.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: devel@... <devel@...>
On Behalf Of Smith, Jason via lists.elisa.tech
Sent: Mittwoch, 29. September 2021 17:15
To: gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman <elana.copperman@...>
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
I’d prefer #2. Simple and to the point.
Jason R. Smith,
UL-CFSX
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
From my perspective I would go for 5. Right now I don't have other names suggestions
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 (especially Lukas and Paul) for your support.
See below, the preliminary list of suggested names:
-
Linux Developers
-
Linux features for safety
-
Linux features amenable for safety
-
Safety engineering features
-
Linux-based elements for safety-critical systems
-
Applying Linux features
Actually I don't really prefer any of these names, so would offer a prize to the winning name, allowing additional suggestions to be raised.
Next steps:
-
All those subscribed to this mailing list are cordially invited to vote on (or suggest any new) names for the new WG.
-
Elana will extend a call for collaboration in tomorrow's session at the Linux Security Summit, including a call for participation in the newly formed WG. I would ask to have a tentative agreement (via email) on the name for the WG by tomorrow
if possible, the name can be updated later before meetings actually begin.
-
Elana will issue a proposal to present the new WG at the upcoming ELISA workshop (proposal deadline is this coming Friday). The proposal will be high level, and we have agreed to continue this discussion at the next TSC meeting to refine
/ clarify some of the remaining open points. However, the basic format and concept as summarized in the WG proposal (see above link) is not expected to be changed in any major way. For example, we need to agree on how to avoid misunderstanding and provide
a clear disclaimer on any safety claims related to the technical suggestions made by the WG. In addition (as discussed today), all technical features will be clarified within the context of a specific use case, while at the same time understanding the limitations
of NDAs and exposure of proprietary details of business applications.
Regards
Elana
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.
|
|
|
Adding back others (Philipp has some issue with the mailing list – are you registered in these groups?)
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Ahmann, Philipp (ADITG/ESS1) <pahmann@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 6:28 PM
To: jason.smith@...; gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
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 information and e-mail communication
to process your inquiry and for internal and possibly tax documentation purposes. Your information will only be passed on to third parties if this is necessary to carry out your request or if we are legally obliged to do so.
I’d prefer #2. Simple and to the point.
Jason R. Smith,
UL-CFSX
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
From my perspective I would go for 5. Right now I don't have other names suggestions
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 (especially Lukas and Paul) for your support.
See below, the preliminary list of suggested names:
-
Linux Developers
-
Linux features for safety
-
Linux features amenable for safety
-
Safety engineering features
-
Linux-based elements for safety-critical systems
-
Applying Linux features
Actually I don't really prefer any of these names, so would offer a prize to the winning name, allowing additional suggestions to be raised.
Next steps:
-
All those subscribed to this mailing list are cordially invited to vote on (or suggest any new) names for the new WG.
-
Elana will extend a call for collaboration in tomorrow's session at the Linux Security Summit, including a call for participation in the newly formed WG. I would ask to have a tentative agreement (via email) on the name for the WG by tomorrow if possible,
the name can be updated later before meetings actually begin.
-
Elana will issue a proposal to present the new WG at the upcoming ELISA workshop (proposal deadline is this coming Friday). The proposal will be high level, and we have agreed to continue this discussion at the next TSC meeting to refine / clarify some of
the remaining open points. However, the basic format and concept as summarized in the WG proposal (see above link) is not expected to be changed in any major way. For example, we need to agree on how to avoid misunderstanding and provide a clear disclaimer
on any safety claims related to the technical suggestions made by the WG. In addition (as discussed today), all technical features will be clarified within the context of a specific use case, while at the same time understanding the limitations of NDAs and
exposure of proprietary details of business applications.
Regards
Elana
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.
|
|
|
Paul Albertella
I like Philipp's suggested name best: Linux features for safety-critical systems
Paul
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 2021-09-29 16:38, elana.copperman@... wrote: 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 PM
To: jason.smith@...; gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman
<Elana.Copperman@...>
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul
Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
I go for 2.5:
Linux features for safety-critical systems
Best regards,
Philipp
|
|
|
I agree and would support this suggested name 100%.
Jason
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: devel@... <devel@...> On Behalf Of Paul Albertella via lists.elisa.tech Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:19 AM To: elana.copperman@... Cc: development-process@...; devel@... Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG I like Philipp's suggested name best: Linux features for safety-critical systems Paul On 2021-09-29 16:38, elana.copperman@... wrote: 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 PM
To: jason.smith@...; gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman
<Elana.Copperman@...>
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul
Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
I go for 2.5:
Linux features for safety-critical systems
Best regards,
Philipp 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.
|
|
|
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 attached. Virtual champagne for COVID-19 virtual celebrations).
Regards
Elana
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: Smith, Jason <Jason.Smith@...> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 7:20 PM To: paul.albertella@...; Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...> Cc: development-process@...; devel@... Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG I agree and would support this suggested name 100%. Jason -----Original Message----- From: devel@... <devel@...> On Behalf Of Paul Albertella via lists.elisa.tech Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:19 AM To: elana.copperman@... Cc: development-process@...; devel@... Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG I like Philipp's suggested name best: Linux features for safety-critical systems Paul On 2021-09-29 16:38, elana.copperman@... wrote: 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 PM
To: jason.smith@...; gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman
<Elana.Copperman@...>
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul
Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
I go for 2.5:
Linux features for safety-critical systems
Best regards,
Philipp 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.
|
|
|
Gabriele Paoloni
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:23 PM Smith, Jason via lists.elisa.tech <jason.smith=ul.com@...> wrote:
I agree and would support this suggested name 100%.
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: devel@... <devel@...> On Behalf Of Paul Albertella via lists.elisa.tech
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:19 AM
To: elana.copperman@...
Cc: development-process@...; devel@...
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
I like Philipp's suggested name best: Linux features for safety-critical systems
Paul
On 2021-09-29 16:38, elana.copperman@... wrote:
> 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 PM
> To: jason.smith@...; gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman
> <Elana.Copperman@...>
> Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul
> Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
> Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
>
> I go for 2.5:
>
> Linux features for safety-critical systems
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philipp
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.
|
|
|
Jonathan Moore <jandcmoore@...>
The OS will always be SEooC so never in 'full control' of safety.
'Safety related' would be more accurate than 'safety critical' and more in line with the common understanding of the phase.
J
I like Philipp's suggested name best: Linux features for safety-critical
systems
Paul
On 2021-09-29 16:38, elana.copperman@... wrote:
> 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 PM
> To: jason.smith@...; gpaoloni@...; Elana Copperman
> <Elana.Copperman@...>
> Cc: development-process@...; devel@...; Paul
> Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
> Subject: RE: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
>
> I go for 2.5:
>
> Linux features for safety-critical systems
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philipp
|
|
|
Paul Albertella
Hi Jonathan, On 30/09/2021 08:24, Jonathan Moore wrote: The OS will always be SEooC so never in 'full control' of safety.
'Safety related' would be more accurate than 'safety critical' and more in line with the common understanding of the phase. 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 'safety-related' might be a better term to use in general, as it applies to a broader range of use cases for Linux. Regards, Paul
|
|
|
Jonathan Moore <jandcmoore@...>
Yep. In principal linux, the kernel only, could be a part of an element to the OS and then you could use things like the GNU/Linux distinction but I suspect the OS might be more than just GNU parts.
I will check when I get home if the word 'critical' appears in the latest edition. There was some resistance to this in years gone by.
J
Hi Jonathan,
On 30/09/2021 08:24, Jonathan Moore wrote:
> The OS will always be SEooC so never in 'full control' of safety.
>
> 'Safety related' would be more accurate than 'safety critical' and more
> in line with the common understanding of the phase.
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 'safety-related' might be a better term to use in
general, as it applies to a broader range of use cases for Linux.
Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Jonathan Moore <jandcmoore@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 10:59 AM
To: Paul Albertella <paul.albertella@...>
Cc: Elana Copperman <Elana.Copperman@...>; development-process@...; devel@...
Subject: Re: [ELISA Technical Community] Proposed new WG
Yep. In principal linux, the kernel only, could be a part of an element to the OS and then you could use things like the GNU/Linux distinction but I suspect the OS might be more than just GNU parts.
I will check when I get home if the word 'critical' appears
in the latest edition.
>> Latest edition – of which document?
There was some resistance to this in years gone by.
Hi Jonathan,
On 30/09/2021 08:24, Jonathan Moore wrote:
> The OS will always be SEooC so never in 'full control' of safety.
>
> 'Safety related' would be more accurate than 'safety critical' and more
> in line with the common understanding of the phase.
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 'safety-related' might be a better term to use in
general, as it applies to a broader range of use cases for Linux.
Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
