SW Dev Process Community - working slots

[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

[PandaeDo]

July-08, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@hoe-jo
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@PhilipPartsch

MoM:

• Prioritizing the process requirements implementation - see Improvement: Process requirements alignment process_description#99 - please comment your process area priority and use in the ML2 Epic for addressing the Tool community.
• Discussion if we want to implement a check if ASIL D is used? Also discuss if we shall update all templates? We also have to adopt two stakeholder requirements when we decide to change it. Templates that has to be updated:
  doc__, stkh_req__, feat_req__, comp_req__, tool_req__, aou_req__, feat_arc_sta__, feat_arc_dyn__, logic_arc_int__, logic_arc_int_op__, comp_arc_sta__, comp_arc_dyn__, real_arc_int__, real_arc_int_op__, dd_sta__, dd_dyn__, sw_unit__ - @aschemmel-tech and @PandaeDo will be working together to remove the ASIL_D from process and metamodel (incl. checks) as this is also a finding from the Audit. see Audit action resolution: Remove ASIL D from req process process_description#93
• Comments on process: update metamodel safety analysis docs-as-code#104 by @aschemmel-tech discussed, conflict with @masc2023 to resolve, let's merge as is to enable piloting.
• Question regarding Features which will have two implementations in C++ and Rust. The implementations will have differences in e.g. the AoU's. How we shall store them? Two different Repo's? Shall the process descriptions also be enlarged to cover this topic? - Let's give the authority to decide upon handling to the architecture and document the decision in the feature request. Need to add this to architecture guideline. Our decision would be Feature Flag: can select C++ or Rust implementation, one repo due to strong simmilarity, two components with their own component requirements/AoUs.
• Rust API guidelines PR : Start writing Rust API guidelines for S-CORE #1282 who has to approve? - Check in "Rust meeting" on Wednesday 14:00 (see https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/107). @PandaeDo : there is also already https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/development/rust/coding_guidelines.html

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

@PandaeDo are these the templates in vscode that you mean? Or the metamodel definitions?

[PandaeDo]

These are the metamodel definitions. It's only the preparation for the discussion tomorrow to see were we have to change. The templates in the process descriptions have also to be changed if we want to be clear in the description.

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

Alright. Thanks for the clarification

[aschemmel-tech]

July-15, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@aschemmel-tech
@kroehnd
@hoe-jo
@markert-r (partly)
@PhilipPartsch (partly)

Agenda and Meeting Minutes:

• Hardware Software Interface (HSI) work product: https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/workproducts/index.html#wp__hsi - do we need this or should be tailored? Maybe with the reasoning: "HSI is coming from systems and HW engineering which are not part of S-CORE and the standard only asks for refinement during SW development. As the input is missing, there is nothing to refine. Expectations towards the HW/Environment are covered by AoUs. Also S-CORE only provides reference HW integration, so every user would have to redo the effort anyway."

Decision: HSI will be tailored out, as for now the project is SW only, and only reference HW is placed

• As we cover from Iso 26262 part 4: "6.4.1 Specification of the technical safety requirements" (in our stakeholder requirements) - would it make sense that we also cover "6.4.2 Safety mechanisms"? This is a question from Auditors which we need to answer as part of the requirements process.

Decision: 6.4.1 will be part of the process and documented as Stakeholder Requirements

• Audit Action_26: "It needs to be described, how the Project Management circle “approves” the release with “signature”. (it was discussed that this is a tick mark in the release ticket, and that this tick with a clear allocation to a person is equivalent to a signature)." - but TLs/PLs clarified that there will not be a "signature" as we also do not take liability within S-CORE - see Audit action correction: release no production process_description#108

eclipse-score/process_description#108 contains concrete statement, that we make no "release for production"

#1142, where to place the document?, @aschemmel-tech , please review PR #1398

@PandaeDo created Issue eclipse-score/docs-as-code#132. Please feel free to have a look on to find examples for the issue
Question from @PandaeDo: We have a Audit finding at document management "10.4.2 every Iso 26262 WP must be "a document"". We

• create a lot of guidelines that might be documents for a better understanding. Shall we change it?
• In the current Feature documentations the templates from the folder templates are not used. Shall we address this to the team leads?

Discussed, no further action, process_description is separated from the realization

Updates in process_description to align with PMP, e.g. #1407 - need to wait for release. Which build command to use?

Discussed, should document how to release process_description, General description will be made in this PR, #1415

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

@aschemmel-tech I think you accidentally closed this discussion?

[masc2023]

yes

[masc2023]

July-22, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@aschemmel-tech
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@hoe-jo
@ubmarco, Marco Heinemann
@ubmax, Maximilian Pabinger
@markert-r
@PhilipPartsch (partly)

Agenda and Meeting Minutes:
Discuss on #1445 and https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1445/platform_management_plan/release_management.html#identification

Discuss Audit Finding Tickets for Tool Management and Problem Resolution
eclipse-score/process_description#81, eclipse-score/process_description#123
eclipse-score/process_description#86, eclipse-score/process_description#122

On eclipse-score/process_description#117 (see below): trying to answer and created a PR (eclipse-score/process_description#121) on this (Alexander). Open topics: gd_req__impl__design_code_link, gd_req__doc__attributes_automated

Is it possible from process community to move audit slot to December instead of October or January (due to BMW internal topics) ?

If time, Shifted to Thursday Meeting
Presentation: 15m
We at useblocks develop tools that make working with Sphinx and Sphinx-Needs easier.
I think it would be of value to get the word out about our tools ubCode (https://ubcode.useblocks.com/) and its companion CLI app ubc (https://ubcode.useblocks.com/ubc/introduction.html).

It can do real time previews of RST, collect need items, jump between references/definitions, also collect Sphinx references since the latest version. The tools can also be used in the CI.

Meeting Minutes:
Presentation shifted to Thursday, 24.07.2025, invitation will follow

Audit slot will be shifted to December, if possible, otherwise January will be kept

Module Release Plan presented, @aschemmel-tech will fix wrong links, #1480, together with update of Release Management Plan

Tool Management activities:
Process Description will be updated according Doc-as-cod Example, @masc2023
Create Ticket for everybody to identify the tools in S-CORE, @masc2023, created, #1482
-> Create for each identified tool a tool ticket, create report, evaluate, qualify, if applicable and release, started as sub-issue of #1482, first tool added as sub-issue is #1483, Doc-as-Code
-> S-CORE, contains tools folder

Problem Resolution:
Issue Template will be in Process Description, add examples, @masc2023
Remove Category from Problem Resolution

Tool requirements discussion
[gd_req__impl__design_code_link]
Topic will be managed by the new created task force teams for detailed design, etc. after finalization, the Process Description for Implementation must be updated accordingly, @PhilipPartsch, @MaximilianSoerenPollak, @hoe-jo may relevant Process Team members up-to-date

[gd_req_doc_reviewer]
@aschemmel-tech will update the requirements and let the team review, shall be based on git history

[gd_req__req__attr_version]
Needs separate discussion, compare useblocks/sphinx-needs#1352, proposal for review support, https://spacy.io/

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

I'd like to draw attention to: eclipse-score/process_description#117
Maybe just to know who to talk to, to resolve these questions.

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

Also got approached to incooperate / write a development guide to make working with bazel modules easier.
#1447
Would like feedback on this maybe too from process.

[MaximilianSoerenPollak]

Would like to also ask who wants to be part of a discussion with Tooling regarding gd_req__req__attr_version .
As we want to make sure we have exact specifications before we start implementation, as this may can be integrated into the sphinx-needs core, depending on what is actually needed.

Related (old) POC, #197

[masc2023]

July-29, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@masc2023
@PandaeDo
@MaximilianSoerenPollak
@PhilipPartsch
@ubmarco
@hoe-jo
@markert-r
@kroehnd

Agenda and Meeting Minutes:
Release Preparation, E07/2025, v1.1.0, eclipse-score/process_description#132
Major changes, Update Problem Resolution (Example for using Bug Tickets exists), Tool Management,
Still in review, Discuss eclipse-score/process_description#54

Activated CODEOWNER in process description, what does this mean?

Update Planning EPICS and set new Milestones for
Process Development Community (view)
Process Community (view)

How to continue with, #1482

Theme for PlantUML: #1416

Plan attendance for August time frame

Meeting Minutes:
Released planned for 30.07.2025, waiting on Doc-as-code, v0.1.0

Activated Problem Reports in Process Description and Score

Activated CODEOWNER in Process Description, for Score in Review

Presented #1482, please start identifying tools

Discuss Theme for PlantUML: #1416, Process Community agrees to introduce the concept, but details, as color, style, where to put legend, etc. needs to be worked out

Plan attendance for August time frame, as discussed, may reduce amount of meetings, only bi-weekly

[aschemmel-tech]

Aug-05, 9-10 o'clock

Participants:
@aschemmel-tech

Update on TRLC, Lobster?

Update on DD working group?

Inspection documentation, see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/general_concepts/score_review_concept.html#inspection-conduct - propose to use merged checklists for DD and code as for req and arch - because currently there is no established inspection process/tooling with github reviews and we already have a lot of code merged in the module repositories.

https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS - during August?