General SW Dev Process Community - Meeting Minutes

[aschemmel-tech]

Time:
Feb-18, 9-10 o'clock

Agenda:
Check participants
Align on Agenda for today

Planning - are we confident for Audit slot 3
Unique ID #180 - exception for standard requirements (question from Markus Schu) - no
Do we want to have safety/security attribute for roles? And also others like workflows and workproducts? See #329 - no, can be removed from roles, also only optional "security" attribute for stakeholder requirements.
Process description template (define what is in "concept", "getting-started" ...?
Other discussions from open PRs (e.g. #399)

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@hoe-jo
@kroehnd_mbg
@PandaeDo
@pahmann
@markert-r
@PhilipPartsch

Meeting Minutes:
Planning:

• Req - PR is available
• Arch - PR expected in 3-5 days
• Implementation - dicuss concept and working mode on Thursday
• Safety Mgt - PR available
• Verification - detailed planning in progess, transfer and fixing of findings should be achievable apart from some special topics with a lot of interdependencies

Present Requirement Process: #377 - findings documented in PR

Process description template - not for now to be able to do some improvements on the way, but "Requirement Process" should be used as an example.

[aschemmel-tech]

Time:
Feb-25, 9-10 o'clock

Agenda:
Check participants
Align on Agenda for today

Warnings stopping doc build
Inspection process (#432) to be discussed in workshop with Alexander Lanin, Jochen and AlexS
Verification (#441)
Implementation PR?
Discussions from other open PRs (e.g. #436)
Location for tutorials

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@hoe-jo
@kroehnd_mbg
@PandaeDo
@pahmann
@PhilipPartsch

Meeting Minutes:
Warnings stopping doc build - are switched on now
Implementation PR: Volker will publish today (even it will not build in the moment), potentially use workaround with "codespaces" - supported by Jochen
We agreed to restructure the landing page - Jochen to create a proposal to discuss
Invited to comment on #436
Verification: @pahmann to include concept and fix audit findings until friday, @PhilipPartsch to provide a template for feature/component integration testing template on pytest, we agreed to have test "specification" rather also as part of the "test" WPs

[masc2023]

Time:
Mar-4, 9-10 o'clock

Agenda:
Check participants
Align on Agenda for today

General Traceability Concept, #343
Change Management Draft, #443
#526 impl. Process
https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/434#discussioncomment-12299310

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@hoe-jo
@kroehnd
@PandaeDo
@pahmann

Meeting Minutes:

[aschemmel-tech]

Time:
Apr-1, 9-10 o'clock

Agenda:
Check participants
Align on Agenda for today

Participants:
@masc2023
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@pahmann

Meeting Minutes:
VDA Sys, Decide on Abstract, #806, fine for now
who is going to present? Discussed VDA-SYS presentation, speaker not decided yet, final call 04.04.2025, BMW will check internally

Release Management Ticket #313 may have to be taken over by other person, to be discussed on next Process Community Meeting

Alignment Eclipse Safety Process / Trustable SW / S-CORE / …
Discussed potential meeting with all stakeholder including Exida, Paul from CodeThink is in lead to organize it.

Alex gave Feedback from AUTOSAR workshop, outcomes: #809

Verification Process Tickets: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Acommunity%3Atesting

[PandaeDo]

Mar-25, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@pahmann
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@hoe-jo
@markert-r
cc: @masc2023

Agenda:

• Verification levels
• Do we need different Roles regarding to the contributor e.g. if the contributor is able to perform a safety analysis?
• Shall we add Testing Community Member as Role?

Meeting Minutes:

• Philipp will create a proposal for recap of Component Test and Component Integration Test and also for argumentation of verification levels in the direction that we have integration test on component level caused of integration of units into components and sub-components into components.
  Roles
• Creation of additional roles in the codeowner table with enlarged skills e.g. Safety Engineer for Safety Analysis.
• Add Testing Community Member as Role.

[masc2023]

Apr-08, 2pm-3pm o'clock

Participants:
@pahmann
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@hoe-jo
@masc2023

Agenda:
Verification
Configuration Management, #845, postponed
Release Management, postponed
Quality Management, postponed

Meeting Minutes:
Discussed Verification, #721, #823

[masc2023]

Apr-15, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@masc2023
@mmr1909
@hoe-jo
@markert-r
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@PhilipPartsch

Agenda:
Walk Through
Example: Link Implementation to Architecture

Quality Management, #835
Safety Analysis #902
Security Management, #867
Tool Management, #932

Meeting Minutes:

Discussed topics for the up-coming workshop at BMW on 23.04/24.04.2025
Meetings in week 21.04-25.04 due to easter vacation/workshop at BMW

Discussed latest proposal: link implementation to architecture

Discussed Quality Management, Follow-Up Planned for 15.04.2025, 14:15-15:15, @PandaeDo will invite

[masc2023]

Apr-29, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@masc2023
@pahmann
@hoe-jo
@mmr1909
@markert-r

Agenda:
Tool Management, #932
Release Management, #866 -> we wanted to present to Exida, pending TL feedback
Quality Management, #835
Safety Analysis #902
Security Management, #867
shall we add one of above to Audit on May-12?

Meeting Minutes:
Discuss Repo Structure, Process Description Repo should contain the "Process" as it is currently in Score Repo
"Doc-As-Code" Repo for Sphinx-Tooling, etc -> required from e.g. @hoe-jo to setup Pilot for LoLa
"Process Description" Repo for the "S-CORE" independent part of Process, not PMP
Moving of to Process Description shall be done NOT for 12.05, next Audit, and first pure transfer, then re-work to make it S-CORE independent
PMP stays in S-CORE repository

Create Ticket to create TSF in Sphinx-Needs, and link to S-CORE processes initially to find gaps and vice versa, @masc2023
Done, #1009

As example see here: https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/safety-monitor/safety-monitor/-/tree/main/trustable/safety-monitor-expectations?ref_type=heads

Release Management shall be released as next.
Tool Management is checked, asked also Infrastructure Team to review it, #932

[masc2023]

May-06, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@masc2023
@pahmann
@mmr1909
@markert-r
@hoe-jo
@MaximilianSoerenPollak

Agenda:
Audit Agenda, Open Topics on May-12?
Planning Review for next Milestone
Tool Management, #932
Quality Management, #835
Safety Analysis #902
Security Management, #867

Meeting Minutes:
Audit is prepared, Tool Management may merged and added to the Audit, if possible, @aschemmel-tech , @pahmann will check again
Tool Management, #932
Audit invitation list, may add @FScholPer as repräsentative for Mercedes
#823 , @aschemmel-tech to check for merging before the audit

Planning Update for Next Milestone done,

Quality Management Review Meeting, 07.05.2025, 9-10, @aschemmel-tech , @masc2023 , @PandaeDo will invite

Feedback Pilot Projects: (EPIC Process Pilots #760)
RUST - in work, ISSUE #952 , PR #1027, Coding Guidelines started #592
C++ - Rework of Feature Requests, COM and IPC ongoing, Rework of Architectural Design ongoing, Coding Guidelines/MISRA (Rule number can be published with statement (pending)), Coverity Open Source reports MISRA rules and title, is this allowed?

@aschemmel-tech presented some review findings, improvement tickets to be created, topics: Renaming of Concept Description, e.g. to Process Description, improvement of Change Management Request, more explicit description about responsibilities for different Requests, Rework of Contribution, remove word "Contribution Request", Discussed about FMEA/DFA, separate Meeting will be setup, considering from the begin Safety/Security

[masc2023]

May-20, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@kroehnd
@mmr1909
@hoe-jo
@MaximilianSoerenPollak

Agenda:
Status Transfer from process folder from score-repo to process_description-repo
Taken over the score/docs/processes on May-14
Documentation is building with warnings/errors, so information only
Warnings resolved, beside, eclipse-score/process_description#12 and eclipse-score/process_description#13
-> Agreement to resolve them?
Alexander and Jochen cannot build the process_description-repo: bug ticket see #1103
linking across repos works with prefixes: SCORE_ - it does not work with doc references.

Decide to delete now process folder in doc to avoid inconsistencies, not merged PRs, which have input for process folder in doc should be separated

• Safety Analysis process: document safety analysis #902 Question regarding platform level @PandaeDo
• Alexander working on a folder template for features, modules and components inclusive filling those with templates. More effort than expected (Improvement: doc mgt fix folder template #1106)
• Resolve warnings from docs-as-code metamodel checks process_description#13

Meeting Minutes:
Volker and Daniel will also try if they can build locally

Max will try a bugfix for #1103 proposed by Jochen today

Alexander will prepare the PR to delete the score/docs/process folder if Volker can build locally

Decision for eclipse-score/process_description#13 : Max will disable the check for all foldernames below process_description/process

Question on the "Platform DFA" - what do we link it to:

• Alternative A: create platform architecture and platform AoU (and integrate in the process descriptions) and link to those incl. the stakeholder requirements
• Alternative B: link to all the feature architectures of the features used in the platform and also to feature level req and AoU
• could not decide - postpone decision until Markus Schu and Philip are back.

Alexander presented his work on the folder templates

[aschemmel-tech]

May-27, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@kroehnd
@mmr1909
@hoe-jo
@masc2023
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@AlexanderLanin (partly)

Agenda:

• Audit report and finding resolution (planning): Improvement: Fix audit 4 findings #1085 (discussed)
• process_description repo usability: "bazel build //process:docs_release" now works locally also behind proxy, doc produced by CI? (discussed)
• meeting with infrastructure team to align on how to get "process requirements" implemented (discussed)
• Platform DFA question from last meeting (shifted to next week)
• docs: add folder_templates process_description#15 - discuss if WP can be a document AND a (special) need (discussed)
• PR to delete process form score repo, as proposed by @MaximilianSoerenPollak (discussed)
• com: rework Lola Architecture #1133 (discussed)

Meeting Minutes:
@MaximilianSoerenPollak will create PR to prepare deletion of process, delete also old metamodels in score, no prefix required, doc produced by CI to enable for process_description repo

Audit Findings discussed, Tickets assigned

Template folder will be updated with document header by @aschemmel-tech,

Process Requirements implementation, @aschemmel-tech will discuss with @MaximilianSoerenPollak , @AlexanderLanin

[masc2023]

June-03, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@masc2023
@markert-r
@kroehnd
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@mmr1909
@pahmann

Agenda:
-Status deletion of process folder in score, #1185, check https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_traceability_concept.html for supporting the overall, multirepo linking
-Tool Requirements
-Platform DFA question from last meeting
-Status Safety Analysis
-Status Quality Management
-Reviewer for Pilot Persistency needed
-Bazel check "link the same issue" means that we have to generate an issue for every wp. Do we want this?

Meeting Minutes:
Work on https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/tree/MSP_integrate_process_build to solve remaining issues her, @masc2023
Status deletion of process folder in score, #1185
To be checked: check https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_traceability_concept.html
-> Create Ticket for Traceability Model, as only from Modules to Scored linking is supported by tooling, done, eclipse-score/process_description#25
-> Create Ticket for handling REPLACE_ in process_description, done, eclipse-score/process_description#24

Tool Requirements will be created, Prototype as Doc-as-code, How to link Tool Requirements: Link will be done from Tool-Repo to the Process_Description, Where to locate the Tool Verification Report is not clear yet, must be defined
Review of process requirements may follow these example #1170

-Bazel check "link the same issue" means that we have to generate an issue for every wp. Do we want this? NO
Linking WPs to same issue from RST file leads to an error, add PR to show the error message, @PandaeDo

-Platform DFA question from last meeting
There will be ONE platform features DFA WP, referring to all platform feature static architecture diagrams, which shows potential common usage of modules

Safety Analysis and Quality Management are now pushed to process_description, ready-for-review

Reviewer for Pilot Persistency needed: @kroehnd

Folder Template is missing "Implementation Template", @aschemmel-tech will updated it, done, with eclipse-score/process_description#29

[masc2023]

June-10, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:

@PandaeDo
@masc2023
@markert-r
@MaximilianSoerenPollak

Agenda:
Review Safety Analysis PR, eclipse-score/process_description#20
Review Quality Management PR, eclipse-score/process_description#21

Meeting Minutes:

[masc2023]

June-17, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:

@PandaeDo
@pahmann
@kroehnd
@masc2023

Agenda:
Review Quality Management PR, eclipse-score/process_description#21

Meeting Minutes:
Review findings addresses, ready for final review round

[masc2023]

June-24, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@PandaeDo
@kroehnd
@aschemmel-tech
@hoe-jo
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@mmr1909
@markert-r

Agenda:

• Recap status of Process Description, achieved v1.0.0, Maturity Level 1
• Feedback form Process Pilot Persistency Review Improvement: Process descriptions process_description#38
• Alignment Safety Management and Quality Management on planing aspects.
• Feedback from discussion with Infrastructure Team, Tool Requirements, Open Questions
• Finding from Pilot wrong tags
• Feedback form Process Pilot Persistency Review
• Question regarding AoU-linking
• Rust Coding Guidelines
• Proposal to use Issue templates

Meeting Minutes:

• Invitation from Useblocks to @markert-r Versendet Einladung für Vorstellung Idee Useblocks für ISO 26262 Zertifizierung
• Recap status of Process Description: Process Description for Safety Analysis and Quality Management completed. Quality Management Plan has open topics. See next topic.
• Alignment Safety Management and Quality Management on planing aspects: Findings from auditor and from the reviews of the Quality Management Plan. Next working meeting today with @kroehnd and @aschemmel-tech
• Finding from Pilot wrong tags: We might have a Process Requirements that checks if the tag is set correctly. I have some entries in my Safety Plan from other Features because of this reason. @aschemmel-tech
• Feedback form Process Pilot Persistency. Daniel performed a review at the documentation of persistency last week. Most of the findings we used as a direct improvement in the pilot. A summary is available here: Improvement: Process descriptions process_description#38
• Question regarding AoU-linking: How to test AoUs? Proposal be defined @aschemmel-tech @hoe-jo
• Feedback from discussion with Infrastructure Team, Tool Requirements, Open Questions more process questions process_description#35 (comment). Next working meeting tomorrow 9 o'clock. Please update the process requirements in the process areas according to the linked issue. Please invite infrastructure team as reviewer in the PR's
• Summary for Rust Coding Guidelines created https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1224/contribute/development/rust/coding_guidelines.html
• Proposal from @hoe-jo will be aligned with problem resolution process description and also with Improvement: create template for issue type bug #869

[masc2023]

July-01, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@kroehnd
@hoe-jo
@mmr1909
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@markert-r

Agenda:
Planning, to be discussed: Planning based on Releases for Process Description?
Definition of Maturity Level 2: eclipse-score/process_description#41, eclipse-score/process_description#43

Discuss Bugfix Template: eclipse-score/communication#25
Discuss Component Tests vs Integration tests for not mockable components (Service Discovery <-> Inotify)
Discuss Component Folder (contains all defined components, Arvid will provide proposal)
Versioning not clear for PER-Team
#34
Implementation Checklist IMPL_01_02 possible removal/update

Meeting Minutes:
07.07, @aschemmel-tech will take part of TL, CL, FL round, 10.00 (please check, if it is declined)
Planning Proposal discussed, Follow-up and final decision on Thursday meeting, everybody thinks about taking over EPIC ownerships,
in addition think about Ownerships of PMP parts

@hoe-jo proposed problem, improvement templates, will be used as basis for score

Component Folder in Score discussed (Component Register), audience would propose to follow up with that

Implementation Checklist IMPL_01_02 possible removal/update discussed, shall be removed @aschemmel-tech

[aschemmel-tech]

Oct-28, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@odra
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@PhilipPartsch
@kroehnd
@hoe-jo (from presentation of Detailed Design prototype)

Agenda:
Review platform AoU on OS integrator (#1931)
Bi-Directional traceability: #1930

MoM:
Platform AoU on OS integrator: comment from @qor-lb : #1931 (review)
was discussed. In the light of this the AoUs need to be reworked (@aschemmel-tech) and also aligned with Tech/Project Lead circles. @odra offered to support the Tech/Project circle meetings.

Based on the participants feedback the process community is in favour of option M because we think the UX argument is rather small (not so much difference from a user point of view). @aschemmel-tech will comment the PR on behalf of the process community.

presentation of Detailed Design prototype by @PhilipPartsch: Idea is to replace some of the explicit attributing of relations (e.g. component contains units) by folder structuring (suported by templates and maybe naming conventions). This should then also be in a similar way for feature architecture. Approach was liked by the community. @PhilipPartsch to further refine and sharpen together with @hoe-jo

[aschemmel-tech]

Oct-30, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@aschemmel-tech
@odra
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
Paul Sherwood
@Erikhu1
@FelixMoelders
@opajonk
@AlexanderLanin
@pahmann
@hoe-jo

(Standard) Agenda:

Planning - see Process Development Community (view)

Process Development

• Question raised from TSF piloting: are AoUs possible evidences to "fulfill" trustable assertions.
• AoU on SW platform - AoU on SW platform level on OS integrator #1931 rework, Tech Lead alignment
• Decision records shall have a date process_description#230
• Backlinks discussion, https://sdvworkinggroup.slack.com/archives/C0864L05332/p1761759291413209
• Versioning Schema restrictions?

Safety Management (execution topics, Safety Managers needed)
Quality Management (execution topics, Quality Managers needed)

Discuss about this warning and how to solve it?
⚠️ Docs-as-Code version mismatch detected
Please check the CI build logs for details and align the documentation version with the Bazel dependency.

MoM:

• Question raised from TSF piloting: Pauls suggestion: AoU should be documented as part of TA-CONSTRAINTS. And then the score would be for the "fufiller" of an AoU to add,. also better to state what the S-CORE scoring of an AoU would be (based on correctness and completeness.

• AoU on SW platform: Discussed the implications of AoU on SW platform level on OS integrator #1931 and the comments from @qor-lb and @aschemmel-tech. We agreed that it would be good to describe the activities to be done by S-CORE as a "reference OS" integrator in feature and/or module description. Compare e.g. https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/os/docs/index.html . Especially open is how to functionally integrate a second reference OS in S-CORE (for example if we need a OS abstraction layer component). This may re-open Change Request: Tiered SW Platform (Operating System) Integration Process for Eclipse S-CORE #1740. Suggestion to discuss this in the Architecture workshop next week. @aschemmel-tech to bring this to @qor-lb.

• Backlinks discussion (presented by @AlexanderLanin): Conclusion: Backlinks expected to be visible in the integration (repository) and also those should not be visible by default.

• further Agenda points transferred to next meeting.

[aschemmel-tech]

Nov-4, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@PandaeDo
Paul Sherwood
Eric Hu
@aschemmel-tech
@PhilipPartsch
@pahmann

Agenda:

• Decision records shall have a date process_description#230
• Versioning Schema restrictions?
• Discuss about this warning and how to solve it?
  ⚠️ Docs-as-Code version mismatch detected
  Please check the CI build logs for details and align the documentation version with the Bazel dependency.
• Made more generic (roles, "external SW elements"): AoU on SW platform level on OS integrator #1931 and next steps: PMP docu of "OS integration process" and OS module docu extension (as in https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/os/docs/index.html)

Close open PRs for Release 1.3.0
eclipse-score/process_description#231, check release notes template in github
#1920
eclipse-score/process_description#208

Discussed
Discussed, see comment in eclipse-score/process_description#230, No agreement in Process Community

See Preparation, of the SCORE 0.5.0-pre-release, alpha,
https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/434#discussioncomment-14855797

Versioning Schema restrictions discussed, current understanding is, that modules in S-CORE habe their semantic versioning, dependencies on OSS lib etc. will be reflected in the documentation

• Discuss about this warning and how to solve it?
  ⚠️ Docs-as-Code version mismatch detected
  Create ticket for Infrastructure community, to check, if the evaluation needs update, otherwise change the version in the evaluation document, @masc2023 will create ticket, Bug: Mismatch between Doc-as-code Tool evaluation version and Bazel version #1967

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#232, no clear opinion yet, need to be discussed in a broader round

Discussed https://github.com/eclipse-score/communication/commits?author=BMW-Contributor, contact @antonkri

[masc2023]

Nov-06, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
Paul Sherwood
@kroehnd
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
Holger Modler (ETAS)
Roland Jentsch (ETAS)
@AlexanderLanin
@PhilipPartsch
@pahmann
@CryptoNutcase

(Standard) Agenda:

Planning - see Process Development Community (view)
#1929

• Will we do the election for existing Quality Managers again? Do they have to be committers first to become Quality Manager?
• Escalation path (also beyond project manager) shall be discussed

eclipse-score/docs-as-code#292
eclipse-score/process_description#229
#1969
eclipse-score/process_description#208
eclipse-score/process_description#233

MoM:
Discussed eclipse-score/docs-as-code#292, Back arrows will still stay in documentation -> decision: Try it out w/o Pre-fixes

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#229, Keep one template for every level of requirements -> decision: remove issues in existing template

Please review #1969

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#233, Rename Platform Test to Platform Integration Test, some missing changes, if done ok to merge

Planning topics:
Roland Jentsch, @RolandJentschETAS, presented himself and will support Architecture, will work together with @aschemmel-tech

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#208, Review comments will be included in the updated PR

[aschemmel-tech]

Nov-11, 9:00-10:00 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
Paul Sherwood
@kroehnd
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
Roland Jentsch (ETAS)
@PhilipPartsch
@pahmann
@hoe-jo
@anmittag

MoM:

workflow description: eclipse-score/process_description#236 - decided to have a mixture of options A and B: decribe the approach to understand the processes in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/introduction/index.html (B) and also add links to this (and probably links to the detailed describtion of workflow steps) in the workflow description. Roland to create a PR to fix this for architecture and present in the community.

metamodel changes: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/1090 - @aschemmel-tech will take this over from Markus. Need to align the doing with Infrastructure team. The "derived_from" shall not imply that the requirement it is derived from has to exist already. This shall be documented in the metamodel and in the process description.

New safety req/aou on platform level: #1976 - presented in the process community (and to the safety managers). Discussion about https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1976/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#aou_req__platform__process_isolation - which would be a central safety mechanism required by S-CORE. PR needs to be discussed in archtiecture community. Proposal to improve the desription of "uncoverable" error reporting to make sure these are reported. Should be solution independent.

What will be our process roadmap beyond the audit in mid January? Open are the requirements linkage to ASPICE 4 (Level 2) and to cover Security standard. It may even be needed a discussion how much of ASPICE we really need as an OSS project. And potentially ISO/PAS 8800. Post-poned to Thursday meeting.

[aschemmel-tech]

Nov-13, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
Paul Sherwood
@kroehnd?
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
Roland Jentsch (ETAS)
Holger Modler (ETAS)
@PhilipPartsch
@pahmann
@AlexanderLanin
@odra
@hoe-jo
@FScholPer

MoM:

Planning - see Process Development Community (view)

On track for the audit?

• Requirements: Open is the (hash) versioning topic -> will be done by Useblocks (timeframe open), might be too late, inspection pilot in progress, some improvements to the checklist already done
• Architecture: Open topics now mostly taken over by Roland, should be ok
• Release: Piloting with v0.5.0 alpha release quite good
• Detailed Design / Implementation: Volker started on the documentation update for DD, inputs in progress: @PhilipPartsch and @hoe-jo will align on the DD tooling prototype
• Verification: Several documentation PR in preparation, reference HW setup/location topic may not be solved until the audit, currently we work on QEMU, proposal to use Raspberry Pi but this would be mainly to show that we can perform real HW testing in S-CORE, QEMU running on ARM is planned to be established this week, some process conform testing in some components (which could be used for piloting)
  • Example for properties used in tests for linking: https://github.com/eclipse-score/persistency/blob/main/tests/python_test_cases/tests/test_cit_default_values.py#L70
• Safety Mgt - will need to ask @kroehnd
• Safety Analysis - Piloting done in Persistency, no open process topics, possible improvements by tooling support not needed for the audit
• Tool Mgt - piloting (evaluations) in progess by @alekseyborisyukvalidas, @masc2023 is the "process owner" still

We are establishing mandatory checks in repositories.
Unfortunately, from time to time, those will fail in some horrible way — that’s just reality.
Without appropriate permissions, no one except Eclipse can fix those repositories.
On the other hand, handing out such permissions, obviously allows check and process violations.
“Classically,” someone within projects had the ability to bypass otherwise mandatory checks.
In the past, when we had local servers, there was always a local administrator who maintained the system and had admin permissions for everything.
Trigger: add os_images repo (.eclipsefdn/#100)
For that use case, GitHub offers the “bypass” feature (screenshot attached).
I’d welcome a statement from the process point of view, weighing process compliance and reality.
Who, if anyone, should be granted that permission?
S-CORE Project Leads have the right to grant "bypass" rights and also escalation to eclipse is possible. This should be feasible. Proposal to document this in PMP, PR to be done by @AlexanderLanin and @FScholPer. Also remove current "bypass" configs from repositories apart from the temporary workaraound for syncing in communication and baselibs repos.

What will be our process roadmap beyond the audit in mid January? Open are the requirements linkage to ASPICE 4 (Level 2) and to cover Security standard. It may even be needed a discussion how much of ASPICE we really need as an OSS project. And potentially ISO/PAS 8800. Create ticket for this: eclipse-score/process_description#240 - post-pone discussion to Tuesday, Nov-18.

[masc2023]

Nov-18, 9:00-10:00 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@odra
@aschemmel-tech
@arsibo
@RolandJentschETAS
@PhilipPartsch
@pahmann

MoM:

Planning - see Process Development Community (view)

#1998
eclipse-score/process_description#232
eclipse-score/process_description#240
Status, Next Steps, inc_lohman, TSF pilot

Discussed #1998: The definition of the e.g. SW Module it not clear at the moment, needs to be redefined, @RolandJentschETAS will organize a meeting to discuss on use case a new proposal, @aschemmel-tech, @PhilipPartsch, @masc2023, Baselibs, Logging, FEO, 19.11.2025, 15.00

Discussed TSF pilot, please review, eclipse-score/inc_nlohmann_json#6

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#240, please add your requests what to plan

[aschemmel-tech]

Nov-20, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@aschemmel-tech
@odra
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
Paul Sherwood
@AlexanderLanin
@PandaeDo
@RolandJentschETAS
@FScholPer
@kroehnd
@hoe-jo

MoM:

Process Development

Architecture process requirements findings: eclipse-score/process_description#397 - agreed to removal of "nice to have" process requirement, also https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues/1090 takes precedence (to be done still)
Req inspection piloting done, please re-review eclipse-score/process_description#229 - especially @PandaeDo and @pahmann

Safety Management update, please review
eclipse-score/process_description#398 (process) - there were some difficulties to match all Iso 26262 "Safety Management" related requirements, maybe add some "safety engineering" chapters in the processes descriptions to match those - @kroehnd to create subtickets in the "process ML2" tickets to document these.
#2215 (PMP)

Safety Management: @aschemmel-tech merged Baselibs Module Safety Plan, prepared Communication Safety Plan - need to provide feedback of this "piloting" to @kroehnd
Quality Management: ?

There is a discussion ongoing about webspace for documentation. An open question is: What should be in the documentation which is not yet in there?
The process community might want to contribute here. For example, what about DoxyGen, RustDoc, test reports, and static analysis reports?
#2089 - @aschemmel-tech (as owner of config mgt process description) tries to think of a proposal to be also discussed in upcoming process community meetings. - document as part of this PR.
Compare https://sdvworkinggroup.slack.com/archives/C0864L05332/p1763545869990129

eclipse-score/process_description#72 (comment) - proposal is about how to deal with the "last" open work products "Build Config" - these maybe could be merged with Release Process and the new "Handbook". @PandaeDo, @masc2023 and @aschemmel-tech

Need to assign eclipse-score/process_description#242 for input from processes community. Nobody volunteerd, post pone to next meeting.

Baselibs Feature Team will start with moving module (documentation) artefacts from score repository to the baselibs repository. Proposal is to copy the artefacts, rename the needs (adding a suffix), then wait for the removal of all module artefacts from score repository, release this change in score repo and then remove the suffixes again in baselibs repo. No better solution for this was found in the meeting. Baselibs team is encouraged to do this "PoC".

[aschemmel-tech]

Nov-25, 9:00-10:00 o'clock

Participants:

@masc2023
Paul Sherwood
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@RolandJentschETAS
@sunildevda
@kroehnd
@arsibo
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@pahmann
@PhilipPartsch
@antonkri

Agenda:

https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-15039732

New Meeting series for Security Related Topics, compare here https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/108

eclipse-score/process_description#404

Discussion on SW Modules (see also eclipse-score/process_description#235): are they implementing one feature and use/depend on some other SW Modules to do this? Do we want to "release" single features? And how can we make the SW Modules self-sustained? Possible solution to present.

• delivery of SW modules as SEooC
• Inter module dependencies modelling
• relation to feature (according to the definition), maybe rework definition for better wording
• ...

Safety Management process updates topics:
Who can be the "project manager" for a module? See eclipse-score/process_description#398 (comment)
How do we elect the "safety manager" and also check hie competences? See eclipse-score/process_description#398 (comment)

Need to assign eclipse-score/process_description#242 for input from processes community. Nobody volunteerd in last meeting.

#2089 (comment)

Architecture process audit findings review: eclipse-score/process_description#82 -> Additional meeting between @RolandJentschETAS and @aschemmel-tech to discuss the open points (done -> see task comment for result).

MoM:
New meeting structure for SW Development Community Team discussed and agreed, updated status see here: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-15039732, Announcement will be made in slack channel by @masc2023

Check https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/516#discussioncomment-15039732 for the planned topics for the BETA release

Discussed Safety Management topics. Decision: Safety Manager shall be elected in mediocratic way, Dsitributor Role can be removed

Discussion SW Modules:
@antonkri provided integration view (uploading pending), Discussion needs to continue.

[antonkri]

As discussed WIP document for score_integration_view (the svg image can be downloaded and edited with drawio tool)

[masc2023]

Nov-27, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023 (till 10:00)
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@pahmann
@hoe-jo

accidentally in a parallel Zoom Meeting: -> dear colleagues, use the new Zoom link for the Thursdays meetings!
Holger Modler
@FScholPer
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@RolandJentschETAS

Agenda:
Check and Update Planning for Process Development Community close, delay or keep
in progress: Process Development Community (view)
todo: Process Development Community (view)
no status: Process Development Community (view)

EPICS:
Process Development Community (view)

Check and Update Planning for Process Community, close, delay or keep
in progress: Process Implementation Community (view)
todo: Process Implementation Community (view)
not status: Process Implementation Community (view)

EPICS:
Process Implementation Community (view)

MoM:
It is unclear, who review some pull requests. Because some directories have currently no codeowners. -> Frank take it into the Tech Lead meeting

Audit preparation: presenters: should be according to responsibles in ML2 Epics as in Process Development Community (view) - exception is tool mgt: this is "done" by @alekseyborisyukvalidas but presented by @masc2023
Agenda/Timeplan for the three days will be prepared by @aschemmel-tech. To be discussed in next meeting. Topics are the "not started" in Exida Audit Report and the presentation of the fixed actions and deviations (including process description and example implementation) in the following process areas:

• Requirements
• Architecture
• Safety Analysis
• Implementation
• Verification
• Safety Mgt
• Supporting (Problem Resolution, Documentation, Change, Release, Configuration, Tool)
• "Non-Safety": Quality Mgt presented (deviation closed), Security Mgt to present (action open), Project Mgt not relevant
  Goal is to show we have Iso26262 compatible process definitions and these also can be "lived"
  Action: as the standard requirements are not all linked currently, we need to check the gap.

Other topics

• Proposal to discuss Improvement: Create Platform DFA #2233 in next Tuesday round
• Confirmed Improvement: Add "Analysis" method to Verification Process Description #577 - create needs and folders below "verification" on different levels
• EPIC: Safety Management, ML2 process_description#60 @kroehnd is in holiday. To be discussed, who take it over in next Tuesday round, after checking the updates done already in the PR based on our findings -> Feedback to Frank, if he can help for open topics.

[RolandJentschETAS]

Dec-02, 9:00-10:00 o'clock

New discussion stream: see https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2234#discussioncomment-15105437

[PandaeDo]

Dez-04, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
Paul Sherwood
Holger Modler (ETAS)
@RolandJentschETAS
@odra
@pahmann
@aschemmel-tech
Praveen Gudi
@PhilipPartsch
Avinash Barai
Karthik Vanka (QORIX)

Agenda:
Agree on Scope of this Working Stream:
Planning
Process Development (News, Updates, Improvements)
Quality Management and Execution (Quality Manager Roles required)
Technical topics relevant for Quality, Safety and Security
Information Exchange between all Stakeholders

Addressing again using of templates for Feature Requests, #2288
Tool Management, Progress: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/score_tools/index.html

• PandaeDo: In the last weeks we lost a little bit a structured way of working. All participants are highly motivated and a lot of contributions happens. This could lead to conflicts that I want to avoid. So I would propose that we align together that we will set more focus on planing and consent finding. If somebody have a look on something that might be improved -> Create a issue, set it on the agenda, find consent, assign it. We need contributions. But it makes no sense to drive others mad. With a little bit more deference and politeness this can be easy ensured.

• Improvement: Process community planning for v1.0 Improvement: Process community planning for v1.0 process_description#240

• "Versioned Links": To support change impact analysis we wanted tooling as in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/change_management/guidance/change_management_reqs.html - one impementation for this could be based on "Versioned Links". This means that every needs element would also have an attribute "version" and one could link to this from another need by "needs_id@version" instead of only by "needs_id". If the version of a need is changed and the derived needs links are not, a documentation build would issue an warning (configurable if the warning is breaking the build). UseBlocks may contribute this to S-CORE.

• We currently have no process/tool requirements to check for tracing to "invalid" work products. Should decide these alternatives: 1. remove the "invalid" status and delete the work product instead 2. create automated checks like for the ASIL attribute: "linking a valid element to an invalid element shall not be possible". Also take into account https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_process_reqs.html#gd_req__req_validity

• PhilipPartsch: Agree on introduction of a dedicated component need:

  .. comp:: Component Name
     :id: comp__component_name
     :security: YES
     :safety: ASIL_B
  

  If we disagree, we do have to introduce new review questions:
  Is only one comp_arc_sta saved in a docs folder next to the source code folder?
  If a comp do need additional views (comp_arc_sta), these shall be stored in another area, so they cannot been misunderstood as a component definition from data model?

  We do have to add a new tool requirement:
  Check only one need of comp_arc_sta is in a docs folder next to a source code implementation. If not, create a meta model violation.

MoM:
Presented Scope of this meeting

Discussed introduction of new need-type: component, see above, Decision: Introduce component as new need-type,
Order of work: Doc-as-code will be updated first -> Then update Process_description, with requirement and new doc-as-code version
-> As for further evaluation, example extension, please introduce also definition of feature, module need-type in Doc-as-code

@PandaeDo presented his observations, Team discussion -> Proposal:
Use more Slack Channel, Everybody can also add topics on the Meeting Agenda
Improvement: Process community planning for v1.0 eclipse-score/process_description#240, Ask community to think about concrete date and how to organize it, e.g. pure online, or hybride, etc.

Discussed Versioned Links, No objective from the community to introduce the feature, we will try it out after introduction

Discussed process/tool requirements to check for tracing to "invalid" work products, no consents yet, recover in the the meeting, Safety Team, @aschemmel-tech

Other topics

[masc2023]

Dez-11, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
Rahul Thakre (BTI, BMW Tech India)
Divya (LG)
Ettigadda Ganesh (LG)
@4og (Andrey, BMW)
Chidananda Swamy (LTTS)
@aschemmel-tech
@RolandJentschETAS
Attilio Stefano Funel (ETAS)
@FScholPer
Khartik Vanka (Qorix)
Praveen Gudi (LTTS)
Avinash Barai (LTTS)

Agenda:

• Separate checklist for stakeholder requirements ? Currently the checklist from feature requirements are used, which contains extra points for stakeholder requirements. If we want to have a separate list, then the location in the process repo should be discussed.

Agree on Scope of this Working Stream:
Planning
Process Development (News, Updates, Improvements)
Quality Management and Execution (Quality Manager Roles required)
Technical topics relevant for Quality, Safety and Security
Information Exchange between all Stakeholders

Release v1.4.0, has impact on score, compare #2323

Do we need a separate checklist for stakeholder requirements, compare eclipse-score/process_description#438

MoM:

Short review of Planning activities

Shift Recap definition Module/Feature discussion @arsibo , @RolandJentschETAS to Tuesday meeting, 16.12

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#438, Decision: Create new checklist for stakeholder requirements, platform folder, etc. @RolandJentschETAS -> Done and merged into process description

Introduction of new participants

18.12.2025, will be the last meeting for this year
Agenda:
General Q&A for Process Community, Documents, How we work, etc.

[masc2023]

Dez-18, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
Holger Modler (ETAS)
Dusan Kenjic (RT-RK)
@RolandJentschETAS
@PhilipPartsch
Divya (LG)
@pahmann
Praveen Gudi (LTTS)
Chidananda Swamy (LTTS)

Agenda:

General Q&A for S-CORE
General Q&A for Process Community topics, Documents, wow we work, etc.

Open PRs:
eclipse-score/process_description#436
eclipse-score/process_description#460
eclipse-score/process_description#461
eclipse-score/process_description#462
eclipse-score/process_description#464
eclipse-score/process_description#465
eclipse-score/process_description#466
eclipse-score/process_description#467
eclipse-score/process_description#470

MoM:

Last Process Community Meeting for the Year 2025, will continue on Thursday, 08.01.2026

Discussed eclipse-score/process_description#436, Update PR to assign all lifecycle models, harmonize other work product tags, Fix Head Bugger