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]

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: PRC - Process Development Community (view)
todo: PRC - Process Development Community (view)
no status: PRC - Process Development Community (view)

EPICS:
PRC - Process Development Community (view)

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

EPICS:
PIM - 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 PRC - 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

[masc2023]

Jan-08, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@aschemmel-tech
@RolandJentschETAS
@PandaeDo
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@kroehnd
Attilio Stefano Funel
@pahmann
@anmittag
@hoe-jo
Holger Modler (ETAS)

Agenda:

Happy New Year, will continue on Thursday, 08.01.2026
Anything open, prepare for the up-coming Safety Audit?
PRC - Process Development Community (view)
PIM - Process Implementation Community (view)
Can we close them? New Release required before the audit?

Open PRs:

MoM:
Discussed open Epics, will be closed and topics, which can not be resolved will be followed-up in new task tickets.
New release for process description planned for next Tuesday as baseline for the Safety Audit (14.-16.01.2026)

PMP, Project Management Plan Presentation/Discussion, 22.01.2026, @anmittag

[masc2023]

Jan-22, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@aschemmel-tech
@PandaeDo
@odra
@masc2023
Chidananda Swarmy (LTTS)
@anmittag
@RolandJentschETAS
Rahul Thakre (BMW Techworks India)
Holder Modler (ETAS)
@4og
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
Sachim Kumar Singh
Dusan Kenjic (RT-RK)

Agenda:
Info from the Safety Audit
PMP, Project Management Plan Presentation/Discussion, 22.01.2026, @anmittag
#2481

Discuss planning, and other topics from
eclipse-score/process_description#240
@odra to share his insights on the "OS / QNX integration"

Metamodel Updates, how to continue?
e.g. have different views with more or less detail?
eclipse-score/process_description#515

Open PRs:
eclipse-score/process_description#514

eclipse-score/docs-as-code#351
Deleted vom Process, now error in Doc-as-code, keep optional?
• gd_req__impl_design_code_link• gd_req__impl_dynamic_diagram

Start with Quality Manager Role as already done with Safety Manager Role?
eclipse-score/process_description#493

detail design as UML is only required for ASLI D, therefore I want to remove or tag it for ASIL D.

real operation design by UML is to complicated -> remove ?

MoM:
@anmittag presented current state of PMP, please review here #2481

eclipse-score/process_description#514

Discussed selection for Quality Manager Roles, agreed, @PandaeDo, @pahmann , @masc2023 , Procedure same as election for Safety Managers, @masc2023 will start the procedure

Discussed cyclic dependency of process_description, Doc-as-code, @masc2023 , @RolandJentschETAS, will organize a meeting to discuss solution

Discussed planning and assigned owners for the EPICS

[masc2023]

Jan-29, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@aschemmel-tech
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@odra
@PandaeDo
@kroehnd
Holger Modler (ETAS)
@ramceb
Nemanja Trifunonic (RT-RK)
@AlexanderLanin
@masc2023
Praveen Gudi (LTTS)
Attilo Stefano Funel (ETAS)
Chidananda Swamy (LTTS)
@pahmann

Agenda:
eclipse-score/process_description#524, @RolandJentschETAS presents changes in the Metamodel, align doc-as-code and process_description, see also DR below

Decision Record: #2499 (See https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2499/design_decisions/DR-007-infra.html)

Present bazel link to workproducts / metamodel - eclipse-score/tooling#95 - first presentation by @hoe-jo
What uses cases could be covered with that?

Initial Tool List: #2497 (See https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2497/score_tools/eclipse_score_tools_safety_evaluation_list.html)

PMP updates: #2481
eclipse-score/module_template#41

Start Implementing Quality Management Activities

MoM:
@ramceb presented the eclipse-score/tooling#95, example for persistency, ready for first merge, agreed to change name of function to "dependable_element", agreed on structure, tool should fit to the metamodel, which is currently under rework eclipse-score/process_description#524, Process Community is fine to merge it as first version, Agreed on taxonomy of dependable_element consists of components or/and units, and a component can also consists of components.

Proposed new Meta Model: @ramceb , @aschemmel-tech , please comment here

@aschemmel-tech: Comment on the metamodel change presented above: 1. The "Dependable Element" and "Delivery Container" should be linked "implicit" as these are not sphinx-needs elements 2. Currently I would not rename the "Module View" to "Dependable Element View" as we may not need this in the future and it also should rather be implicitly linked to the "Delivery Container".

Shortly discussed,
eclipse-score/process_description#524, may need updates, @aschemmel-tech will have a look on it

Discussed #2499, from Process Community Point of you Option 2 is fine, @RolandJentschETAS , @AlexanderLanin please continue with effort estimation

[masc2023]

Feb-05, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@odra
@RolandJentschETAS
Chidananda Swamy (LTTS)
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@anmittag
@pahmann
Attilo Stefano Funel (ETAS)
@hoe-jo
Nemanja Trifunovic
Avinash L&T Tech

Agenda:

Release Planning for v0.6, General Sprint, 2 iterations, each 2 weeks, 2 weeks for release team, no feature hubs allowed
Milestone Overview: https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestones
https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/releases/tag/v1.4.3

eclipse-score/process_description#524, Update for Dependable Element, https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-15605348
eclipse-score/process_description#547
eclipse-score/process_description#550
-> Check how "Module" name could kept as alias, to avoid renaming, @masc2023 will check

#2499
Major changes, needs preparation, e.g. eclipse-score/process_description#542 to be closed

Initial Tool List: #2497 (See https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2497/score_tools/eclipse_score_tools_safety_evaluation_list.html)

PMP updates: #2481
eclipse-score/module_template#41

Start Implementing Quality Management Activities

Crosscheck Security versus Safety Activities: eclipse-score/process_description#542 - @aschemmel-tech reviewed

What support from the "outside" we would wish for in the process community? (Could be addressed in "ECAVA Meeting")

MoM:

Change to Dependable Element
-> Check how "Module" name could kept as alias, to avoid renaming, @masc2023 will check

PMP updates: #2481, still open to review
eclipse-score/module_template#41, @anmittag proposes a solution to implement it in .github, https://github.com/eclipse-score/.github/pull/36/changes, content needs alignement, @anmittag will invite for a meeting

Discussed:
Initial Tool List: #2497 (See https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2497/score_tools/eclipse_score_tools_safety_evaluation_list.html)
New structure seems useful, should be taken over. To check if SBOM Tool could generate parts of the list, will discuss in Security Meeting, as there is now a proposal for SBOM tool, @masc2023, Confirmation of the tool use should be documented, e.g. Tool Responsible per community, additional checkbox as get confirmation by PR

Discussed, @aschemmel-tech will join Security Meeting, 06.02.2026, 11-12
Crosscheck Security versus Safety Activities: eclipse-score/process_description#542 - @aschemmel-tech reviewed

Discussed:
Start Implementing Quality Management Activities, Plan minimum activities to support safety audit, e.g. generate Audit Report

Discussed:
What support from the "outside" we would wish for in the process community? (Could be addressed in "ECAVA Meeting")
Proposed Implementation, Verification and (Change Management) Impact Analysis Tooling as Top 3 (including process and implementation)

Discussed:
#536, how to use QNX, @aschemmel-tech plans to show it in Architecture Round (no slot for this given), but can also be put on agenda for process/safty round Feb-10

[masc2023]

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

Participants:

@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@RolandJentschETAS
@aschemmel-tech
@pawelrutkaq
Chidananda Swamy (LTTS)
@anmittag
Avinash Barai (LTTS)
@FScholPer
@AlexanderLanin

Agenda:

Discuss relationship between CODEOWNER FILE, and Process Workflows, RASIC, agree on common understanding and identify gaps, which may lead to updates for Process Description, @AlexanderLanin
https://excalidraw.com/#room=35e543046e3318635995,Z8THF55yHeW9_XPnWzK1wQ
https://gist.github.com/AlexanderLanin/332d7b258d9b23c09408fa6ad0df5630

#2560

Update on:
eclipse-score/process_description#524, Update for Dependable Element, https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/407#discussioncomment-15605348
eclipse-score/process_description#547
eclipse-score/process_description#550
-> Check how "Module" name could kept as alias, to avoid renaming, @masc2023 will check

Update on:
Initial Tool List: #2497 (See https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-2497/score_tools/eclipse_score_tools_safety_evaluation_list.html)

OS integration topic, present: #2515

Symbol report verification report is updated and waiting for checks if findings are solved #2544

#2497

Start Implementing Quality Management Activities
eclipse-score/process_description#564

MoM:

Discussed Symbol report verification report is updated and waiting for checks if findings are solved #2544, @pawelrutkaq presented the current status, @aschemmel-tech , @pahmann please review again and under the assumption, if additional measures are implemented with these would be result in HIGH confidence?

Discussed relationship between CODEOWNER FILE, and Process Workflows, RASIC, agree on common understanding and identify gaps, which may lead to updates for Process Description,

Propose to add additional attributes to mark repos as safety/security relevant, update in https://github.com/eclipse-score, @FScholPer checks how to automate the updates of the repo overview

PMP will add a procedure to elect new maintainers (committer which shall be added to the codeowner file), @anmittag, decision will be done by the existing committers, if new, may all committers are possible?

For Safety/Security/Quality relevant repos, at least one Safety/Security/Quality Manager (committer) must be added

@AlexanderLanin, posted https://gist.github.com/AlexanderLanin/332d7b258d9b23c09408fa6ad0df5630, anybody can have a look and give feedback, postFromAlexander.zip

Example from Communication
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/communication/docs/safety_mgt/module_codeowners.html
Described in the https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/safety_management.html

Discussed Dependable Element again, currently used as Module, but may there are places, which may not correct, as Delivery Container is meant, @aschemmel-tech will check and update

Discussed: #2560, @anmittag will post an invite for the next meeting of all TLs, FTs, CTs, to join the meeting to discuss in a big round about the DR

[aschemmel-tech]

Feb-19, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@RolandJentschETAS
@kroehnd
Chidananda Swamy (LTTS)
Nemanja Trifunovic
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@pahmann
@hoe-jo
@attifunel
@FScholPer

Agenda:

Agenda:
#2346 (revisited) - proposal how to distribute feature artefacts to score and module repositories derived by @aschemmel-tech, @arsibo, @RolandJentschETAS

When to start implementation, also for DR to break cyclic dependency between doc-as-code and to remove templates?

Recap
#2560

Recap
eclipse-score/.github#36
#2481

Update on:
Initial Tool List:
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/score_tools/score_tools_evaluation_list.html
Symbol report verification report is updated and waiting for checks if findings are solved #2544

#2604

eclipse-score/process_description#542

eclipse-score/process_description#574
#2600

Start Implementing Quality Management Activities
eclipse-score/process_description#564
eclipse-score/process_description#562

MoM:

@aschemmel-tech presented, #2346, mutually agreement, after DR update, official approvement can be done, Follow-up with planning for implementation combined with the template movement after approvement.

@aschemmel-tech please check eclipse-score/.github#36
#2481, PMP updates and introduction of new ORGWIDE issues Templates

Discussed, @RolandJentschETAS, @aschemmel-tech comments to add explanation of what means relevant, may in general a explanation of all columns must be added, and there should be an argument, when "NO" is selected for relevance
https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/score_tools/score_tools_evaluation_list.html
Symbol report verification report is updated and waiting for checks if findings are solved #2544

Symbol report verification report is updated and waiting for checks if findings are solved #2544, @aschemmel-tech requests updates to conclude, @alekseyborisyukvalidas can support

#2604 discussed, open for comments

Discussed, please review, so we can merge it soon:
eclipse-score/process_description#542
eclipse-score/process_description#574
#2600

@pahmann ask to give comments for the up-coming S-CORE presentation at the Community Days at Bonn, 24.02.2026

Discussed:
Start Implementing Quality Management Activities
eclipse-score/process_description#564
eclipse-score/process_description#562

1. Plan the Work Product Review, 2. Execute, 3. Contact Author, etc. and ask for improvement, if applicable. Planning Meeting scheduled for 26.02.2026, @PandaeDo will be invite, 1pm, Create/Maintain Release and Quality Manager approval workflows are not related

[masc2023]

Feb-26, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@RolandJentschETAS
@kroehnd
@Chidananda-Swamy
Rudresh Shirwal
@alekseyborisyukvalidas
@attifunel
@arsibo
@AlexanderLanin
@pahmann
Praveen Gudi
@hoe-jo

Agenda:

• Recap PMP, OrgWide Templates - see + orgwide issue templates .github#36 & Pmp pm updates #2481

• "Feature Repository" process: add DR-005 for independent feature delivery #2346 progress?

• Implementation of process requirements: Doc-as-code process_description#541

• Open points in issue_2501_addition_of_missing_safety_docs_templates process_description#574

MoM:

• Recap PMP, OrgWide Templates - not covered as @anmittag not in meeting

• "Feature Repository": @arsibo showed progress in PR process: DR-005 POC logging#52 - looks good, let's get it realized. DR-005 PR has to be updated by @arsibo (especially which alternatives were checked to work) and merged. Then @RolandJentschETAS will start implementing.

• Implementation of process requirements: Looked at some examples:

  • https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/security_analysis/guidance/security_analysis_process_reqs.html#gd_req__sec_attr_mitigation_issue - security process not done completely, so also the security analysis needs are not implemented.
  • https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/safety_analysis/guidance/safety_analysis_process_reqs.html#gd_req__saf_attr_mitigation_issue has "done_automation" but the linked tool requirement https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/main/internals/requirements/requirements.html#tool_req__docs_saf_attrs_mitigation_issue does not cover the req completely, @PandaeDo stated he thinks it is also implemented -> need additional tool requirement, but is also checked in the safety analysis checklist
  • https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/documentation_management/guidance/documentation_process_reqs.html#gd_req__doc_author is not to be implemented in docs-as-code but in github. Tool requirement for this has to be created to show coverage. This should be done in the score repo's tool folder (as there is no separate repo for github). And the tool requirement to be linked in the respective toolevaluation/verification.
  • further steps: process requirements from the list in Matching of doc-as-code implementation status to processes status process_description#589 with the comment "query for process team" need to be distributed and worked on by the "process owners" - this distribution will be done and documented in the ticket by @aschemmel-tech

• @aschemmel-tech will contact @masc2023 to get issue_2501_addition_of_missing_safety_docs_templates process_description#574 merged

• @RolandJentschETAS asked to get through the current tickets and check if priorities/assignment to releases still ok. -> to be put on the agenda for next week.

[aschemmel-tech]

Mar-05, 9:30-10:30 o'clock

Participants:

Agenda:

• Recap PMP, OrgWide Templates - see + orgwide issue templates .github#36 & Pmp pm updates #2481

• Check epic planning in PRC - Process Development Community (view)

• Discuss how to resolve Action_71 in Fix Safety Mgt Audit findings process_description#556 - how to plan activities of the safety/security plan (example(s) see Epic: Implement Platform Safety Plan #2465 but also by @PandaeDo ), also for successive releases.

• How to proceed with Id length check is too restrictive process_description#242

MoM: