On Fri, 2 Oct 2020, Jochen Kall wrote:

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: development-process@... <development-
process@...> Im Auftrag von Paul Albertella
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020 11:30
An: Paccapeli, Roberto <roberto.paccapeli@...>; development-
process@...
Betreff: Re: [ELISA Development Process WG] Extended session - Mapping
Safety Standards to Kernel Evidences

I'm happy to continue the discussion in next week's session.

Please can you share a link to the spreadsheet that we were working on, as I
cannot find it in Google Drive.

Cheers,

Paul

On 02/10/2020 09:25, Paccapeli, Roberto wrote:

Hi all,

I suggest to use the next meeting session to continue the discussion
on the "Testing Process Assessment" excel.

Here you go:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15wbukSZ5lSR-YhzED8ojfFh2FAyAog1o3Hh84-JyRHA/edit?usp=sharing

Summary look good and honest :)

It is putting my "way-to-abstract" Pseudo-DIA idea into life. I guess
once we went through the clauses, we can revisit this formulation of "it
largely depends on the system integrator (or downstream user)" and
we as group can provide some information (methods, tools and data) but we
need to think about and find ways to put that back into the system context
of the downstream users. For tests, it sounds "easy", we can write a test,
we can measure some coverage on some example system, but ultimately, the
downstream users needs to re-run the tests and do their own coverage
measurement.

Then, we can probably also update the description of the abstract
Pseudo-DIA and have it nicely aligned with the assessment for
each clause.

Lukas

Jochen