Architecture Community Meeting Minutes #472

qor-lb · 2025-02-24T12:28:38Z

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator

All official meetings will be documented in this thread. So if you subscribe here, you'll get summaries of the meetings you missed.

qor-lb · 2025-02-24T12:32:22Z

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-02-24

Participants

Zoran Cutura
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Johannes Glamsch @johannes-esr
Andrey Babanin
Lars Bauhofer @qor-lb
Nico Hartmann @HartmannNico
Ulrich Freund
Markus Bechter @ramceb
Lutz Niebergall @LuNieb

Agenda

Stand-in for 3rd & 10th march: @vinodreddy-g
Location & timeline next F2F WS (25-27 march)
Updates on the CFT Leads?
- FEO
- Communication
- Logging
- Persistency
Formal criteria for contribution selection (proposal from @ramceb / @qor-lb)
Current status S-CORE Roadmap Meeting Minutes (TL & Communities & CFTs) #434
Reference integration with other OS than QNX - follow-up with RedHat

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

alternative april 8th - 10th (tues - thu)
Agenda: block per feature + grooming on 1.0 feature architecture (bigger blog)
- target: define feature requests
Location: MB TI Ulm

to 3.

Communitcation lead is @LittleHuba
Persistency potentially taken over by guy (to be verified @LuNieb)

to 4.

accepted & approved
@qor-lb to include the list into the WS minutes

to 6.

invite for breakout - 1h
- participants: Ulrich F, Arvid, Zoran, Nico, Lutz +1, Martin t,
- @HartmannNico to setup invite

Misc:

additional reoccurring slot for architecture 1.0 refinement in the weeklies
- start with the obvious features (e.g. diag)
- define assumptions towards os (e.g. safe fs, sockets, ...)

Formal criteria for contribution selection

Criteria

Functional adherence to feature request

++ everything according to fr
+ partially fulfilling fr (subest of functionality)
0 fr needs to be implemented

Availability of source code

++ open source available under OSI compliant license
+ plan to be open source under OSI compliant license
0 open source available non OSI compliant license
- not open sourced

Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?

++ implemented in a certifiable subset of C++ or Rust
+ refactoring needed but mostly using certifiable subset of C++ or Rust
0 written in QM or not according to project programming language

Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?

-- not available (no plan to close the gaps)
- not open source but available (not planned to open source)
0 not available but plan to close gap exists
+ not open source but available and planned to be open source
++ available in open source and compliant with S-CORE process

Features

FEO

Criteria	Runtime	FEO PoC	Nautilus
Functional adherence to feature request	+ (subset of FEO)	++	++
Availability of source code	++	++	- (tbc)
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	0 (PoC)	0 (PoC)	++
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	0	0	- (tbc)

IPC

Criteria	iceoryx2	Lola	IEC + DRP
Functional adherence to feature request	++	++	0
Availability of source code	++	++	+
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	++	++	0
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	-	+	--

Log & Trace

Criteria	mw::log	Log & Trace	MP Log
Functional adherence to feature request	++	++ covers also tracing	+
Availability of source code	++	++	+
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	++	0	++
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	+	-- only artefacts from COVESA/dlt are availible	+

Persistency

Criteria	Persistency
Functional adherence to feature request	++
Availability of source code	++ ? (Usage of MPL within S-CORE to be checked -> @johannes-esr)
Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?	0
Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?	--

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-02-25T15:18:57Z

vinodreddy-g
Feb 25, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-03

Participants

Zoran Cutura
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Andrey Babanin
Nico Hartmann @HartmannNico
Vinod Reddy @vinodreddy-g
Ulrich Freund
Martin thiede

Agenda

Reference integration with other OS than QNX - follow-up with RedHat
- invite for breakout - 1h
  participants: Ulrich F, Arvid, Zoran, Nico, Lutz +1, Martin t,
  @HartmannNico to setup invite
License for files in inc_xxx
3 . additional reoccurring slot for architecture 1.0 refinement in the weeklies
- start with the obvious features (e.g. diag)
- define assumptions towards os (e.g. safe fs, sockets, ...)

Meeting Minutes

Meeting to be synced with RedHat.
participants: Ulrich F, Arvid, Zoran, Nico, Lutz +1, Martin t,
@HartmannNico to setup invite

Agreed to use the license in the inc_xxx repo's like-https://github.com/eclipse-score/inc_feo/blob/be629b8bf2e1444994fa149d1f45efeba84d4909/examples/rust/feo-mini-adas/build.rs

We should start having meeting slots for the workshop prep to improve on 1.0 architecture: https://eclipse-score.github.io/_images/score_architecture_core_stack_target_picture.png
Agreed to prepare for the 1.0 arch prep
slots proposal -Stuttgart/Ulm- 14th march
@arsibo @ZoranCutura to organize the meeting

Tech leads should come up with a proposal for the coding language group to handle for example - coding guidelines

common libs required for ipc and logging.

Feature request: common libraries for IPC and Logging #549

1 reply

qor-lb Mar 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

RedHat & S-CORE Integration [2025-03-05]

Participants

Nico Hartmann @HartmannNico
Ulrich Freund @vevmaki
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Martin Thiede @mthiede-acn2
Leonardo Rosetti @odra
Torsten Hildebrand

Meeting Minutes

RedHat builds AutoSD images for certain platforms based on CentOS packages: https://sigs.centos.org/automotive/provisioning/
Reference Boards for Automotive images exist
RasPi4/5 is the preferred platform
Presentation
- AutoSD introduction
- Safety-Certification status & distribution
- Supported platforms
- How to get started
  - Redhat can provide images for target platforms: https://autosd.sig.centos.org/AutoSD-9/nightly/raw-images/
Community Arm of AutoSD: Automotive SIG AutoSD
Safety manual is not based on FOSS
Safety Assumption in S-CORE require mapping to Safety Assumptions in OS safety manual
- RedHat can support the creation of the S-CORE safety assumptions towards the OS
Invite RedHat into architecture group (Leonardo)
- Targets:
  - Decide on a target platform
  - Provide an AutoSD Build for that platform
  - Support the creation of public S-CORE assumptions of use for Safety OS
- Roadmap depending on S-CORE proceedings

vinodreddy-g · 2025-03-10T07:15:09Z

vinodreddy-g
Mar 10, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-10

Participants

Zoran Cutura
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Johannes Glamsch @johannes-esr
Andrey Babanin
Ulrich Freund
Markus Bechter @ramceb
Lutz Niebergall @LuNieb

Agenda

Results of communication workshop - https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/542
Workshop prep to improve on 1.0 architecture - meeting arranged.

Meeting Minutes

Will be discussed in detail in CFT.

Agreed to prepare for the 1.0 arch prep - Stuttgart - 14th march.

common libs required for ipc and logging.

agreed on this proposal - #549

info - link to v0.5 scope - https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/score_releases/index.html#releases

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-03-17T12:35:15Z

qor-lb
Mar 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-17

Participants

Ulrich Huber @LittleHuba
Leonardo Rossetti
Vinod Reddy Gopi Reddy @vinodreddy-g
Johannes Glamsch @johannes-esr
Ulrich Freund @vevmaki
Tim Kliefoth @timkl7
Lars Bauhofer @qor-lb
Martin Thiede @mthiede-acn2
Arvid Sievert @arsibo
Andrey Babanin

Agenda

RedHat & S-CORE Integration [2025-03-05]
1. Introduction to AutoSD (Leonardo)
2. Potential target platform for RedHat AutoSD
3. How to provide an AutoSD Build for that platform
4. RedHat support the creation of public S-CORE assumptions of use for Safety OS
High level architecture proposal for scope of v1.0
C++ & Rust toolchain
1. review: C++ toolchain proposal
2. preparation: Rust toolchain proposal
  - compiler & settings, coding rules/sca, style & format, unit test, ...
  - subject matter experts required to support proposal creation (Simon Gasse?)
Issues for AI's of last workshop
Agenda Architecture Community Quarterly F2F [2025-04-08 - 2025-04-10]

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

QEMU for the the initial setup of a virtual platform available
@odra to provide the complete list of supported target platforms
@odra to follow-up on 1.iv. after internal discussion, potentially inclusion of AutoSD for 1.0 instead of 0.5

to. 2.

transfer of picture into draw.io
Boxes that are not represented as FR's already shall have a small description to clarify the content
@eclipse-score/cft-communication: breakout for com API and interaction with respective network protocols like CAN & SomeIP

to 3.

1. C++ Reviewers: @LittleHuba, @vinodreddy-g
1. Rust support: @simon-acc, @vinodreddy-g

to 5.

short status of every CFT prepared up front, only questions to be answered in the WS
Workshop will be mostly used for 1.0 preparation and the Architecture Community
- Preparation of 1.0 feature requests
- Goal: shape the picture of 1.0 so that constraints/requirements for 0.5 features become clearer
- everyone: prepare list of topics to discussion for the 1.0 preparation

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-03-24T07:19:02Z

qor-lb
Mar 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Breakout for Valeo Contribution proposal: Service Bus component
- Tuesday 25th 15:00 - 17:00
- Wednesday 26th 11:00 - 12:00; 15:00 - 17:00
- Thursday 27th 8:00 - 9:00
- Friday 28th 8:00 - 9:00
Validation of PRs
Agenda Architecture Community Quarterly F2F [2025-04-08 - 2025-04-10]

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

approach in general:
1. invite to architecture community for first introduction and explanation of process
2. contribution precondition: source code is (or shortly will be ~3weeks, roadmap in place) available & S-CORE feature request exists and is accepted
3. breakout for pitch after first overview of functionality (slides to be sent 3 days in advance to breakout session)
4. evaluation of contribution using the formal verification checklist
add to "how to contribute" guide @qor-lb

to 3.

review of architecture: Add S-CORE architecture diagram in drawio format #765

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-03-31T08:20:05Z

qor-lb
Mar 31, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Selection of process pilot components Select a Rust module for the process pilot #798 / Select a C++ module for the process pilot #797
- c++ proposal: lola?
- rust proposal: feo?
- optional target: instead of call for contributions, implement json from scratch
Feature request for safe json in Rust and C++
- call for contributions vs writing form scratch for porcess pilot
Feature Request for Config Management #754
Agenda & Participants for Architecture Workshop https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
Autosar discussion

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

moved to next weekly due to missing attendance

to 2.

one FR with the request for a C++ and a Rust contribution
Persistency & communication cft to nominate participants to prepare FR

to 3.

moved to next weekly due to missing participants

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-04-07T11:31:30Z

qor-lb
Apr 7, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-07

Participants

Leonardo Rossetti
Tim Kliefoth
Zoran Cutura
Markus Bechter
Abhishek Goyal
Mohamed Bejijou
Vinod reddy gopi reddy
mina Hamdi
Ulrich Freund
Desoky Abdelqawy
basalib
Ahmeld ElAbyad
Andrey Babanin
Arvid Sievert
Martin Thiede

Agenda

Contribution announcement Valeo
Agenda & Participants for Architecture Workshop https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
Feature Request for Config Management #754
Feature Request Orchestration #273
Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855
Selection of process pilot components Select a Rust module for the process pilot #798 / Select a C++ module for the process pilot #797
- c++ proposal: lola?
- rust proposal: feo?
- optional target: instead of call for contributions, implement json from scratch
Feature request for safe json in Rust and C++
- call for contributions vs writing form scratch for porcess pilot

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

Introduction overview presented by Ahmed ElAbyad
Deep dive in the context of Communication CFT - @HartmannNico
Scope: Com API / Communication concept - binding vs gateway
Presentation: Valeo Service Bus Based On CommonAPI .pdf

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-04-14T13:00:54Z

qor-lb
Apr 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-14

Participants

Agenda

Feature Request Layout
Architecture Workshop & Next steps
- Meeting Minutes: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/764
- Feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)
- next steps
Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855
Selection of process pilot components Select a Rust module for the process pilot #798 / Select a C++ module for the process pilot #797
- c++ proposal: lola?
- rust proposal: feo?
- optional target: instead of call for contributions, implement json from scratch
Feature request for safe json in Rust and C++
- call for contributions vs writing form scratch for porcess pilot

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

accepted: besides prose motivation and spec, derive/include feature requirements + update of stakeholder requirements

to 2.

Initial proposal to be created by FR owners.
Break-out sessions for review of feature requests upon initial proposal (person of interest to be defined within arch community)
Update & review of existing 0.5 FR's required as soon as possible

to 3.

@odra, @qor-lb, @ZoranCutura to breakout - how include the assumptions of use for a Safety OS in S-CORE

to 4.

C++ selection: LoLa
Rust: FEO / Persistency
First target major gaps to be identified in C++, second start with Rust

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-04-28T11:01:24Z

qor-lb
Apr 28, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-28

Participants

Agenda

Slot for next F2F: 24.06. - 26.06.
Context for Persistency Feature (data deployment)
Current Status Feature Requests

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

clarification of dates until next weekly
@qor-lb: agenda to be agreed 1 month in advance

to 2.

https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/853
assumption for 0.5: kvs storage is only accessible within one process
@eclipse-score/cft-persistency to come up with a design proposal until next weekly

to 3.

align the setup of the baselibs with the tech lead circle: @qor-lb

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-05T11:45:30Z

qor-lb
May 5, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-05-05

Participants

Agenda

Safe the date next F2F: 24.06. - 26.06. (CW26)
S-CORE & AUTOSAR Workshop outcome
Context for Persistency Feature: proposal by @eclipse-score/cft-persistency
Preparation: 0.5 architecture
Feature Request: Feature Request: AutoSD Development Platform #855

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

select potential alternatives
- CW28: 08.07 - 10.07.
- CW29: 15.07 - 17.07.
@thilo-schmitt host at MB TI Ulm
@qor-lb update invite & location

to 2.

S-CORE to propose a "plug-in" architecture that would allow implementations serving specific protocols to stay closed-source (allowing closed-source implementations if open-sourcing is unsuccessful)
General proposal from S-CORE to open protocol specifications was well received and will be further discussed within AUTOSAR
@eclipse-score/cft-communication define proposal for plugin-concept based on the SOME/IP use-case (+ @ZoranCutura)

to 3.

@guysagnes presented the proposal
proposal will be discussed and aligned in the next persistency weekly

to 4.

Aligning the common 0.5 architecture
Two main integration points identified
- FEO, using the platform API to provide the functionality to the Applications (@eclipse-score/cft-feo to provide proposal)
  - Com, Persistency, Log
- Baselibs, aligning on common base-libs across features (@qor-lb to setup cft-team)

to 5.

connection to @eclipse-score/community-operational for requirements towards integration platform
extension of motivation for additional development platform to be added

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-05-12T07:05:18Z

vinodreddy-g
May 12, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-05-12

Participants

@odra
@timkl7
@thilo-schmitt
@guysagnes
@arsibo
@johannes-esr
@ZoranCutura
@vevmaki
@4og
Stefan Potyra
Oliver Pajonk
Daniel Steinke
@ramceb
@LittleHuba
@vinodreddy-g
Dejan

Agenda

Introduction Dejan (Apex.AI)
Current Status Feature Requests
Persistency Related to the Persistency CFT [2025-05-08...]
1. CFT: Agreement about the KVS management controlled over the initialization of the component where the process is clear identified. (Improvement: Adaptation of the open / build for KVS to allow process separation #1071)
2. Security abstraction
  Question: We have different deployment of the persistency data in direct relation to the security definition.
  How is the current plan to get the expected abstraction over the architecture (ACL / SE Policy - Linux, SecPol - QNX)?
SOVD PR Feature Request: Diagnostic System #1056

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

updated in the issues

to 3.

Feedback: The security will be taken as independent managed from API. It will rely on the system configuration.
Discussed and agreed

to 4.

Review of PR for SOVD Feature Request: Diagnostic System #1056 required.

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-19T11:14:06Z

qor-lb
May 19, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-05-19

Participants

Agenda

Current Status Feature Requests
- Target: End of May first draft available (~2 weeks left); Agreed & merged FRs until next F2F (CW28)
- Request TLs
  - Single responsible per FR
  - Kick-off session per FR within the next two weeks
    - Invitation to all TLs - internal distribution to responsible
    - Initial scoping of FR content
    - Clear identification of supporting (creating the FR) and reviewing participants within the first session & documentation in FR issue
Dependencies
2.1. Is the decision about the JSON library finalized and related API to be used? (dependency from Persistency FT)
-> https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/tree/main/score/json

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

For C++ rely on the frontend defined by the baselibs
Review for Component Request for JSON: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/pull/822/files
- clarify responsibility of implementation
- Component request ready for review (@eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads )
@qor-lb clarify process for adding components (component request for every component required)?

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-05-26T10:59:27Z

qor-lb
May 26, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-05-26

Participants

Agenda

Deputy for CW23/24 @vinodreddy-g
Feature Request Proposals @dejanpan
- Feature Request for: IDL and code generation infrastructure #1164
- tooling for record, replay and visualization: FEO: Recording & Replay #1113
Current Status Feature Requests

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

IDL
- Scopes for an IDL:
  1. ABI compatible data types: defining data types via IDL and (generating) a related type in the programming language
  2. Serialization wrt. communication protocols/external representation: transformation from internal ABI compatible data types to external protocol serialization
  3. Interface definitions for applications/activities: Definition of input/output interfaces for the applications/activities as an exchange format within the users architecture
- Next steps:
  1. data types: discuss IDL for data types (relates to Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917)
  2. datatype transformation for different external protocols (relates to Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917, Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914)
Recording & Replay
Create a FR for rec/replay in conjunction with FEO & IPC -> @johannes-esr
Integration/clarification of scope in existing FEO activity
note: usability of ABI compatible data types in conjunction to DMA logging of current IPC communication

to 3.

shifted to next week

Misc:

@eclipse-score/community-architecture call for review: Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917

0 replies

vinodreddy-g · 2025-06-02T06:11:37Z

vinodreddy-g
Jun 2, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-06-02

Participants

Agenda

Current Status Feature Requests - Feature Requests / Modification
Who is in charge for base-libs part of a feature?
- Variant 1: feature team is responsible for all.
- Variant 2: base lib team is responsible for API and feature team for the rest (e.g. logging daemon)

Meeting Minutes

baselibs use log api
currently log code is part of baselibs repo , could be refactored for 1.0 to have a log module.
Log FT is responsible for the log module.

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-06-16T11:40:52Z

qor-lb
Jun 16, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-06-16

Participants

Agenda

Welcome Sanimir Agovic

Epic: Architectural gap analysis S-CORE v0.5 #904 (Originally identified in Weekly 2025-05-05)

   - Two main integration points identified
      - FEO, using the platform API to provide the functionality to the Applications (@eclipse-score/cft-feo to provide proposal)
        - Com, Persistency, Log
      - Baselibs, aligning on common base-libs across features (@qor-lb to setup cft-team)

Agenda Proposal for next F2F CW28 by next weekly
- High-level goal: review of 1.0 feature requests
Development of Modules containing Autosar IP
Kick-off Feature Request for Record & Replay #1167
Kick-off Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle #909
Current Status Feature Requests - Feature Requests / Modification

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

Kick-off for baselibs team this week
@eclipse-score/cft-feo / @johannes-esr to present proposal in next weekly
Identify any functional gaps on the modules used within FEO to plan them for 0.5 (noted in the ticket above)

to 3.

accepted, proposal will be created by @ramceb & @qor-lb

to 4.

AUTOSAR Members could collaborate in a AUTOSAR hosted repo using the S-CORE toolchain
@qor-lb add to F2F agenda: alignment of which modules need to be developed in this setup

to 5.

invitation to all TL's in Cc, link to meeting in issue above

to 6.

link to meeting in issue above

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-08-25T11:43:51Z

qor-lb
Aug 25, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-08-25

Participants

@ZoranCutura
@ramceb
Artem Myagaiev
@johannes-esr
Alex Agizim
@timkl7
Bucci Kawabuchi
@HartmannNico
@qor-lb
@dasoho
Mohammad Fouly
@vevmaki
Xavier Bonaventura
@FScholPer
Isabella Stillkerich
Christian Rappl
Sebastian Arnold
@vinodreddy-g

Agenda

Current status feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)
- Feature Request for Security & Crypto #905: Requirements missing -> not yet ready for review
- Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle #909: Squashed commit history with multiple companies involved -> recoverable?
- Feature Request for Time #910: Open comment about HW requirements -> discussion: S-CORE currently has only a reference OS, no HW defined. This requirement is important from system perspective but cannot be satisfied at the current stage (should we make it optional?).
- Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914: requires "clean" git history -> extend git guidelines: using rebase instead of merge to preserve history (input @johannes-esr)
Bucci Kawabuchi: AosEdge, a mixed-critical deployment and orchestration platform.
Discussion: moving the architecture community to the public eclipse calendar

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

Feature Request for Security & Crypto #905: Requirements should be available for review until end of week
Feature Request for Health & Lifecycle #909: commits recovered; to discuss - partial squashing of individual authors (@eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads & @eclipse-score/community-process to discuss handling and identification for relevant commits vs authors & contributors file)
Feature Request for Time #910: weaken requirement
Feature Request for SOME/IP Gateway #914: @johannes-esr & @ZoranCutura & @opajonk to clean up git history -> document procedure in git guidelines

to 2.

AosEdge presented by Bucci (presentation to be shared)
- documentation:https://docs.aosedge.tech/
- code: https://github.com/aosedge

to 3.

accepted

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-09-01T11:35:36Z

qor-lb
Sep 1, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-09-01

Participants

@thilo-schmitt
@odra
@opajonk
Sebastian Arnold
@dasoho
@ramceb
@johannes-esr
@qor-lb
@vevmaki
Bucci Kawabuchi
@nmohanan31
@DanielSteinkeSDV
Leo Hnatek
@4og
@FScholPer
@dejanpan
@vinodreddy-g
@timkl7
Christian Rappl
Shorouk Ramzy

Agenda

Current status feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification (view)
Mapping of AosEdge to S-CORE components: AosEdge for Eclipse S-CORE 20250901.pdf
Platform Definitions

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

next steps:
- detailed review of S-CORE feature requests
- contribution pitch at Nov WS according to How to contribute?

to 3.

clear definition of terms in docs: sth_req for supported target platforms #1541
@qor-lb to invite breakout with @odra and @ramceb to discuss platform integration based on lifecycle feature request

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-09-08T11:52:08Z

qor-lb
Sep 8, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-09-08

Participants

@DanielSteinkeSDV
@odra
@timkl7
@vevmaki
@opajonk
@qor-lb
Mohamed Bejijou
Eduard Metzker
@vinodreddy-g
@crimson11
@johannes-esr
Bucci Kawabuchi
@FScholPer
Christian Rappl
Mina Hamdi
@dejanpan

Agenda

Call for review
- Update api_guideline.rst #1610
- Add initial version of Feature Request for Crypto & Security in docs. #1490
Proposal: change in work mode
- Move from weekly to fortnightly community meetings focused on:
  - Key status updates (progress, blockers, announcements)
  - Discussion and decision on proposals from working groups
- Work to be done in ad-hoc groups
  - Form small, focused groups of active contributors to work on specific topics between meetings
  - Groups self-organize their sessions and bring back recommendations for review and acceptance in the main meeting
Platform Change Request

Meeting Minutes

to 2.

agreed and approved by the community
@qor-lb to update sdv calendar

to 3.

Meta Feature Request: Platform request #1691
- Proposal: tier-based approach similar to how rust compiler handles additional targets - @qor-lb, @opajonk, @odra

0 replies

FScholPer · 2025-09-15T11:53:25Z

FScholPer
Sep 15, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-09-22

Participants

Agenda

Presentation of potential Contribution from CARIAD deep dive -> Norbert Kroth
[Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (1st round - 4th - 6th Nov 2025) #1571
1. Proposal: Additional possible slot for contribution pitches: 13th - 15th Jan
Proposal: Tiered Platform Integration Process for Eclipse S-CORE - @opajonk
Handling of rust crates S-CORE

MOM:

pitch for the com api with multiple bindings under it like -flame, fastdds etc . Next steps - Discuss in com FT
Handling of rust crates S-CORE:
-- Rust crates together with bazel modules
-- Have a single bazel module pulling the rust crates with a particular version for score.
-- @ramceb will update the info in a PR in new repo for this score-crates .
Call for contributions
Issue describing it - Change Request: Tiered SW Platform (Operating System) Integration Process for Eclipse S-CORE #1740
- Have a look and comment .

1 reply

NORkro Sep 26, 2025

CeCaS_com_MW_presentation_SCORE_20250922-shared.pdf
Please find here the presented slides about our Automotive Communication Middleware.

qor-lb · 2025-10-06T11:36:28Z

qor-lb
Oct 6, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-10-06

Participants

@qor-lb
@odra
@chheis
Andreas Thums
Ian McLeod
Jens Zimmermann
@johannes-esr
@timkl7
Leo Hnatek
@vevmaki
@vinodreddy-g
Shorouk Ramzy
Bucci Kawabuchi
Christian Rappl
@arsibo
@4og
s.a. graf
VPeddina
Johannes Lex (SAG)
@ramceb
@ZoranCutura

Agenda

Call for contribution 1.0: [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (1st round - 4th - 6th Nov 2025) #1571
1. Proposal: Additional possible slot for contribution pitches: 13th - 15th Jan
Current Status open feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification
Contributors for [Platform AoUs] Define basic SW-Platform AoUs #1566
Change Request: Tiered SW Platform (Operating System) Integration Process for Eclipse S-CORE #1740

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

see comment: [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (1st round - 4th - 6th Nov 2025) #1571 (comment)

to 2. and 3.

moved irregular arch community meeting at 13th Oct to discuss open topics

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-10-13T09:25:14Z

qor-lb
Oct 13, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-10-13

Participants

@odra
@qor-lb
Daniel Krippner
@johannes-esr
@timkl7
@chheis
@ZoranCutura
@AThums
Abhishek Goyal
Jens Zimmermann
Bucci Kawabuchi
Kishore
@arsibo
@4og
Mathias Danzeisen
@DanielSteinkeSDV

Agenda

Call for contribution 1.0: [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (1st round - 4th - 6th Nov 2025) #1571
1. Alignment on slot for 2nd round: [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (2nd round - 20th - 22nd Jan 2026) #1891
Current Status open feature requests: Feature Requests / Modification
Contributors for [Platform AoUs] Define basic SW-Platform AoUs #1566
Change Request: Tiered SW Platform (Operating System) Integration Process for Eclipse S-CORE #1740

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

see update in ticket
@chheis volunteered to take meeting minutes during workshop
no shepherd required, decentralized consensus building
2nd round proposed to move to Jan 20 - 22 (allows 1 week buffer after vacation period). Date to be confirmed in the next weekly

to 2.

@timkl7 to clarify status of Feature Request for ABI compatible datatypes #917 & Feature Modification for Cross-VM One-Way Sharing & Streaming #1715
@johannes-esr to clarify status of Feature Request for Security & Crypto #905 & Feature Request for Record & Replay #1167

to 3.

@AThums potentially interested
connect with @antonkri to clarify participation from BMW

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-10-20T11:47:32Z

qor-lb
Oct 20, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-10-20

Participants

@AThums
@arsibo
@FScholPer
@odra
Shorouk Ramzy
@timkl7
@qor-lb
Bogdan Badicu
Jens Zimmermann
Daniel Krippner
@dasoho
@thilo-schmitt
Johannes Lex
@johannes-esr
Mina Hamdi
@ZoranCutura
@ramceb
Massimo
Ian McLeod
@vevmaki

Agenda

Agenda preparation: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1922
Persistency: Error-handling in the JSON parser - https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1239#discussioncomment-14017842

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

please add in-person participants for the preparation
- addtionally, please send participant details (first name, last name, company, company address (street, number, city, postcode)) directly to Leo Hnatek ([email protected]) for registration and access to the premises/building.
@qor-lb to consolidate list and send to [email protected]

to. 2.

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-11-03T12:30:04Z

qor-lb
Nov 3, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-11-03

Participants

@odra
@qor-lb
@ZoranCutura
Daniel Krippner
Oliver Heilwagen
Roland Jentsch
Abhishek Goyal
@arsibo
Tobias Kühnel
@vinodreddy-g
Rakshith
@4og
@timkl7
Sebastian Arnold

Agenda

Reminder: Deadline for open-sourcing code for the contribution pitches: [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (1st round - 4th - 6th Nov 2025) #1571

Meeting Minutes

0 replies

ramceb · 2025-11-12T09:02:13Z

ramceb
Nov 12, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-11-17

Participants

@qor-lb
@aschemmel-tech
Yefeng Fan
@odra
@thilo-schmitt
Sebastian arnold
Shorouk Ramzy
@arsibo
@vevmaki
@ramceb
Rakshith
Roland Jentsch
Kishore
Johannes Lex
@FScholPer
@timkl7
Jens Zimmermann

Agenda

Review Meeting Minutes Architecture Community F2F Workshop [2025-11-04 - 2025-11-06]
1. Discuss https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1922 and bazel module approach.
2. Discuss https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1922 esp. and safety qualification approach
  Continuing in Rust first until February
  Rust first: If there is a new implementation, we do the development in Rust.
3. Daal next steps: [Contribution Request] Deterministic App Abstraction Layer (DAAL) #1771 (comment)
Call for review Safety Stakeholder req and AoU addition #1976 (@aschemmel-tech)
Discussion: Need of configuration guideline (@AThums)
- we need to map code to configuration (e.g. mw::com uses instance specifier) --> should be same in all modules?
- naming convention and other stuff making configurations for integrators easier
Preparation [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (2nd round - 20th - 22nd Jan 2026) #1891
Question (@arsibo): Requirements for suspend to RAM?

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

1.1. @qor-lb @ramceb @FScholPer to define decision record and weigh pro's & con's of the documented approach
1.2 updated meeting minutes to reflect discussion/decision
1.3 updated meeting minutes to reflect discussion/decision
With the updated changes the meeting minutes are accepted by the architecture community.

to 2. - 5.

postponed to next weekly
@qor-lb to invite for 24th Nov

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-11-17T14:11:18Z

qor-lb
Nov 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-11-24

Participants

Agenda

Call for review Safety Stakeholder req and AoU addition #1976 (@aschemmel-tech)
Preparation [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (2nd round - 20th - 22nd Jan 2026) #1891
Discussion: Need of configuration guideline (@AThums)
- we need to map code to configuration (e.g. mw::com uses instance specifier) --> should be same in all modules?
- naming convention and other stuff making configurations for integrators easier
- see [Feature Request] Configuration Guideline for Module Configuration #2217
Question (@arsibo): Requirements for suspend to RAM?
Release / branching Strategy Improvement: Define Release workflow #2231
Static Code Analysis [Static Code Analysis] Execution of checks for every C++ component in I-Gate #1746

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

@eclipse-score/community-architecture to review the pull request
after merge all feature owners to decompose the safety requirements to the respective features - @aschemmel-tech to facilitate.
@qor-lb to extend Change: Define general SW-Platform Stakeholder requirements and AoU #1882 to track feature implementation

to 2.

Inclusion of platform request for the next workshop - preparation @odra
Date finalized: 20 - 22nd Jan
Location: Stuttgart @ ETAS

to 3.

Proposal: start with the definition of the configuration model/guideline within the lifecycle feature and discuss a concrete proposal in architecture community
Configuration guideline should be binding for all modules in the 1.0
Target: first draft for the next architecture community workshop

to 4.

@arsibo to validate if stakeholder requirements exist
interest from the architecture community to support this functionality - @arsibo in the lead to prepare the content
due to capacity in this year - detailed work to be started beginning of next year

to 5.

need to exercise a defined release strategy within each module for the next beta release
@eclipse-score/community-architecture to review the proposal in the ticket

to 6.

moved to next weekly

0 replies

qor-lb · 2025-11-24T14:03:12Z

qor-lb
Nov 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-12-01

Participants

Agenda

Organizational: Last architecture community meeting in 2025 - 08.12. or 15.12.
@FScholPer Static Code Analysis [Static Code Analysis] Execution of checks for every C++ component in I-Gate #1746
@arsibo (flat buffers) Change: add component binary config loader #1935
@AThums User requirements for communication security
- service offer denial enforcement
- partial access restrictions to service interfaces
@AThums Changing workflows in all repositories
- integrate reusable github workflow to build reference integration triggered by PR

Meeting Minutes

1

The community is flexible so if there is agenda items for the 15th we can have it. Lars will pick a stand in

2

The static code analysis PR is merged so request to the community to please have a look and provide feedback

3

What will be the developer experience if we go with flat buffers -> Oliver H. presented slides to address this point
json is better for small configurations and is more convenient for integrators to make changes where as flatbuffers is way more efficient in terms of CPU run time, memory usage etc.
- The decision is to go for it and try it out. Caveat is that the tooling for it needs to be good
- There will be some PRs selected from the communication module for the flat buffers to be implemented

4

Is there a requirement of Service of denial for OEMs/ communication
- Not strongly required
Is there a requirement for partial access restrictions especially the autosar users?
- Not really.

5

What will be the impact on CI/CD runners because the free workers will not be enough
Its a question of stability vs speed.
At the movement we have the reference integration which is the deliverable and not the master
We will continue this discussion in the next meeting

4 replies

ramceb Dec 1, 2025
Collaborator

@qor-lb Unfortunately I will not be able to join the meeting today. Can we please shift the safety artefacts topic to next week.

odra Dec 1, 2025
Collaborator

I would like to discuss this change request: #2264

nmohanan31 Dec 1, 2025
Collaborator

@OliverHeilwagen or @arsibo , Could you please attach the slides that was presented for flatbuffer implementation to the discussion. Thanks!

OliverHeilwagen Dec 4, 2025
Collaborator

@nmohanan31 please find the slides in #1935 FlatBuffers_on-board_configuration.pdf

For communication using FlatBuffers please refer to:

qor-lb · 2025-12-01T08:56:52Z

qor-lb
Dec 1, 2025
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-12-08

Participants

@ZoranCutura
@odra
@qor-lb
@michaelsaborov
@opajonk
Abhishek Goyal
@awillenbuecher-xq-tec
Ahmed Tarek
@AThums
@FScholPer
@dasoho
@timkl7
Vadim Selinger
@4og
Ahmed Tarek-Ramadan

Agenda

Stand-in for 15th Dec: any volunteers?
Review [Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (1st round - 4th - 6th Nov 2025) #1571
@FScholPer: Vadim Selinger usage of actual devices instead of qemu for unit testing?
@AThums: Configuration Model:
- Need for multiple instantiation
- Need for compositions of components
@FScholPer: Improvement: Define Release workflow #2231 Decision
@FScholPer: ´[Contribution Request] AI Platform / Inference Engine #1768 Contributions
@odra AutoSD platform inclusion: Change: AutoSD Platform Onboarding #2264

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

no volunteer found - next architecture community meeting on 5th Jan

to 2.

updates to be provided in the tickets
mostly the community was able to establish consensus

to 3.

proposal by vadim: to use qualcomm hardware platforms to execute the test environment on
the community agrees that it would be great to have reference hardware platforms available
clarification: hardware platform in addition to qemu, not instead
questions
- Q: Would the BSP be open-source available?
  - A: BSP could be an issue - not open source available for everyone at the moment. Could be evaluated internally, Vadim to follow-up.
- Q: Will we get access to the assumptions of use for the hardware platform to ensure that our certifiable reference is aligned with them?
  - A: to be clarified - vadim to follow-up
  - even if in the first step only the hardware would be available, would be a great addition
- Q: Is there a specific hardware already in scope?
  - A: to be clarified - vadim to follow-up
- Q: How can S-CORE get support on the hardware platform in case there are any questions/bugs?
  - A: to be clarified - vadim to follow-up
Next steps:
- break out with testing & infrastructure to clarify how to operate the hardware and if we could introduce it as a reference environment
- @FScholPer to organize the breakout
- evaluate if there is a similar process as with the OS Tiers required

to 4.

Need for multiple instantiation
- yes
Need for compositions of components
- Has to be answered in the context of the application frameworks
- If there is no direct use case visible, we will keep it out of scope for now

to 5.

if there are no strong objections/alternative proposals on the table, lets agree to use the approach for the 0.5-beta and onwards

to 6.

If there is no contribution announced until the week before the next workshop, this topic will be removed from the agenda and addressed in a following workshop
Q: Qualcomm/vadim interested to contribute to the feature?

to 7.

great initiative; PR will combine both 1) definition of how platforms are added and documented in S-CORE and 2) proposing AutoSD as a community tier
@opajonk to support the description of the platform overview

1 reply

odra Dec 5, 2025
Collaborator

AutoSD platform inclusion: #2264

ramceb · 2025-12-05T12:14:47Z

ramceb
Dec 5, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2025-12-15

Participants

@arsibo
@RolandJentschETAS
???

Agenda

1 safety artifacts within a module @ramceb

Meeting Minutes

Diskussions about place (which repo) for Feature requirements/architecture/... and what (Feature/Component) is required as SEoC. Additional discussion about dependencies between modules and relation to features.

0 replies

anmittag · 2025-12-29T16:39:08Z

anmittag
Dec 29, 2025
Collaborator

Weekly 2026-01-05

Participants

Agenda

Announcement of Open SOME/IP Specification
- in depth reviews to be shared with the community?
- include as contribution request for the someip FR?
[Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (2nd round - 20th - 22nd Jan 2026) #1891
- agenda to be reviewed next week
- additional topics to be included?
@anmittag: Please scan your open issues: close them, adapt the description what to be done, or delete them: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Acommunity%3Aarchitecture
@FScholPer / @4og: docs: Adding requirements and a component change request for vajson #2358
@ramceb: safety artifacts within a module

Meeting Minutes

Agenda postponed to next week due to lack of attendees

to 2.

Location: Borsigstr. 24, 70469 Stuttgart

0 replies

qor-lb · 2026-01-05T13:09:55Z

qor-lb
Jan 5, 2026
Collaborator Author

Weekly 2026-01-12

Participants

Agenda

Announcement of Open SOME/IP Specification
- in depth reviews to be shared with the community?
- include as contribution request for the someip FR?
[Contribution Requests] Identify maintainer for the 1.0 (2nd round - 20th - 22nd Jan 2026) #1891
- agenda to be reviewed next week
- additional topics to be included?
@anmittag: Please scan your open issues: close them, adapt the description what to be done, or delete them: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3Acommunity%3Aarchitecture
@FScholPer / @4og: docs: Adding requirements and a component change request for vajson #2358
@ramceb: safety artifacts within a module

Meeting Minutes

0 replies

Eclipse S-CORE

Architecture Community Meeting Minutes #472

Uh oh!

qor-lb Feb 24, 2025 Collaborator

Replies: 41 comments · 11 replies

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Feb 24, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-02-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Formal criteria for contribution selection

Criteria

Functional adherence to feature request

Availability of source code

Maturity (technical debt of code base): Is the implementation already safety certifiable?

Adherence of available artifacts to score process expectations. Are all artifacts for a certification available in public?

Features

FEO

IPC

Log & Trace

Persistency

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vinodreddy-g Feb 25, 2025 Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-03

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 14, 2025 Collaborator Author

RedHat & S-CORE Integration [2025-03-05]

Participants

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vinodreddy-g Mar 10, 2025 Collaborator

Weekly 2025-03-10

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 17, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-17

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 24, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Mar 31, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-03-24

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Apr 7, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-07

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

qor-lb Apr 14, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-14

Participants

Agenda

Meeting Minutes

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

qor-lb Apr 28, 2025 Collaborator Author

Weekly 2025-04-28

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator

Replies: 41 comments 11 replies

qor-lb
Feb 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

vinodreddy-g
Feb 25, 2025
Collaborator

qor-lb Mar 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

vinodreddy-g
Mar 10, 2025
Collaborator

qor-lb
Mar 17, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Mar 24, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Mar 31, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Apr 7, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Apr 14, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
Apr 28, 2025
Collaborator Author

qor-lb
May 5, 2025
Collaborator Author