Fix Safety Mgt Audit findings

[aschemmel-tech]

What

Not started:

• 2-5.4.2.5 - infrastructure is provided by Eclipse S-CORE project, personnel provided by member companies and OSS contributors
• 2-5.4.2.6 - https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/process_management/process_management_concept.html#monitoring-improving-of-the-process-description-implementation, examples see EPIC: Lessons Learned for Milestone Releases #522 and planning of the process community: PRC - Process Development Community (view)
• 2-5.4.2.7 & 2-6.4.2.2 - safety manager assignments in safety plans, safety managers approve safety package, project leads approve release, ensured by CODEOWNER configuration
• 2-6.4.2.3 - not possible in an open source project, no safety impact as the user will only be able to use releases after those are done, user cannot expect milestones are met
• 2-6.4.2.4 - as a release relies on a safety package and this is approved by a safety manager before release is approved by the project lead, this should be given
• 2-6.4.8.2 - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/safety_management/guidance/guideline_safety_management.html#gd_guidl__saf_package and collection of work products for documentation mgt plan in automated way - example https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/safety_management.html#platform-management-plan-documents-status-chart
• 2-6.4.9.3 - all documentation is open source, also https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.html#doc__module_name_safety_package_fdr checklist id 3 confirms this
• 2-6.4.10.1 - see "Conduct" in FDR checklists, e.g. in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.html#doc__module_name_safety_package_fdr
• 2-6.4.10.2 - FDRs are part of Safety Package which is a precondition to the release - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/release_management/guidance/release_guideline.html#software-module-release "Release Preparation"
• 2-6.4.10.3 - should be covered by Action_72
• 2-6.4.10.4 - this is not planned, see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_workflow.html#wf__p_formal_rv (has no "supported_by" set)
• 2-6.4.10.5 - this is planned, only one checklist, only one review round
• 8-12.4.2.2 - Covered by https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/verification/module_verification_report.html
• 8-12.4.2.3 - not applicable for ASIL_B - tailored
• 8-12.4.2.4 - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.html#oss-sub-component-qualification-plan "If source code is modified, this is not a OSS qualification any more."
• 8-12.4.2.5 - unique id is in release note, configuration is n/a, responsible safety manager can be seen in safety plan, environment is the reference platform (as for all S-CORE components), results are in verification report, allocated requirements show ASIL
• 8-12.4.3 - verification is done with the same processes as own development (added to table in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.html#oss-sub-component-qualification-plan)

Action_65: It needs to be clarified if the Safety Manuals for the Feature level are missing in the upper picture. - There are no safety manuals for the feature level, feature level AoU are communicated in the related "Module Safety Manual". See https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_guideline.html#workflow-for-creating-and-linking-assumption-of-use-aou and https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_workproducts.html#wp__module_safety_manual

Action_70: The definition of the required skills shall not be limited to “Safety” people. Each person working in a safety project shall be competent for the allocated work E.g. testers shall be competent in testing (here e.g. in the test methods, required by ISO 26262).

Action_71: There is no planning yet, how/ if the safety plan will be adapted to the next iteration/ milestone/ release or how the Safety Plan activities are planned. example see: eclipse-score/score#2465, plus #620 and eclipse-score/score#2716

Deviation_21: It is unclear which documents are meant. (only understandable in context of audit report, likely to be towards "Deviations to the platform plan should be documented here.") - "deviations" section added in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/platform/safety_planning/index.html and in https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan.html

Action_72: The Confirmation Review checklists need to refer to ISO-26262. - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_plan_fdr.html and https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description//main/folder_templates/modules/module_name/docs/safety_mgt/module_safety_package_fdr.html

Action_84: Planning needs to be mentioned in the concept description in addition to the existing guideline - see https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/main/process_areas/safety_management/safety_management_concept.html#safety-management-work-products about classification and qualification planning.

How

No response

Estimates for realization

2 weeks

Category

• Affects Detailed Design

Requirements / Architecture

• Requirements / Architecture are not affected by this change?