Meeting Minutes (TL & Communities & CFTs)

[johannes-esr]

Discussion containing all Meeting Minutes for the TL, Communities & CFT exchange meeting

• check general updates of the score bot: https://github.com/eclipse-score-bot
• Board: S-CORE Alignment Board (view)

[johannes-esr]

2025-02-24

Participants

• @johannes-esr
• @masc2023
• @LittleHuba
• @qor-lb
• @arsibo
• @antonkri
• @FScholPer
• @AlexanderLanin
• @guysagnes
• @markert-r

Agenda

1. Feedback from the Technical Leads
   1. How to pass tasks between teams #410
      • Proposal: One Label per Community; Sync Meeting on Monday (this meeting)
   2. Discussion of Roadmap Planning: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/305
2. Feedback from the Community Leads
   1. Operational
   2. Testing
   3. Software Development Process
   4. Marketing & Communication
3. Feedback from the CFT Leads
   1. Persistency
   2. FEO
   3. Communication
   4. Logging
4. General/Open Points

Meeting Minutes

1. 1. Usage of labels for communities (community:architecture, community:infrastructure, community:testing, community:process, community:marcom) and CFTs (cft:persistency, cft:feo, cft:communication, cft:logging)
   2. Update of Roadmap
   3. Define creation of documentation in processes, @johannes-esr

Milestones	Date	Description
Process & Tools enable Development	31.03.2025	Left side of V-Model done. Acceptance Criteria: - Process & Tooling for requirements & architecture is available (sphinx-needs incl. additional checks for verifying traceability/consistency). - Process & Tooling for Detailed design, implementation & unit verification defined and implemented (e.g. spinx-test-reports). - CI/CD is capable to automatically verify the consistency & traceability. - Tooling for test coverage & static code analysis. Prerequisites: - Selection of tooling (e.g. static code analysis).
Modules Buildable	15.04.2025	All MVP defined features (FEO, IPC, Logging, Common Libraries, Persistency) can be built in software module repositiories. Until then, the modules are handled within the incubation repositories. Acceptance Criteria: - All modules use a common repository template (build, CI, gitlint, README, ...); to be checked by operational whether Git submodule/bazel module can be used to avoid code duplication. - All modules are built with bazel, (C++17: clang for x86 Linux with -Wall, -Wextra, -pedantic; Rust: rustc 1.83.0). - Unit tests are built and run, also via GitHub Actions. - No strict adherence to coding guidelines, but coding guidelines are available. - How to guide for reference build & test environment. - Result: every software module can be built inside of its repository. No common integration so far, no running image. Prerequisites: - MS "Process & Tools enable Development" mostly done
Reference Integration Linux	15.04.2025	Acceptance Criteria: - A reference integration repository is available which depends on all feature/module repositories and the score main repository. - reference Linux image (Docker) is available - There are integration tests available which run on Linux image. - Usecases for the integration tests are defined. Prerequisites: - MS "Process & Tools enable Development" & "Modules Buildable"
Process & Tools enable Testing	31.05.2025	Testing strategy is defined and corresponding tooling is implemented. Acceptance Criteria: - Process and Tooling for Testing (e.g. component or integration tests) are available.
Functional GAP Analysis finished	01.06.2025	- For all existing solutions for Release v0.5 analysis of missing features (GAP analysis) is finished, POCs has confirmed possible implementation solutions and everything is documented in Feature Requests. - Feature Requests are confirmed in the TL round and Software Architecture community, tickets are created and prioritized for implementation accrodingly
QNX Support	01.06.2025	The project supports the QNX toolchain. Acceptance Criteria: - The existing modules can be built with qcc. Prerequisites: - QNX Version and license defined
Reference Integration QNX	01.07.2025	Acceptance Criteria: - reference QNX image (Qemu) is available (ethernet) - There are integration tests available which run on QNX images. - Image is built and tested as part of automated CI/CD pipeline. Prerequisites: - 'QNX support' milestone - 'Reference Integration Linux' milestone
S-CORE v0.5 Release Candidate	01.06.2025	The features of the 0.5 MVP are according to the S-CORE processes and all artefacts are created initially. Acceptance Criteria: - All necessary artifacts (requirements, tests, architecture) exist in S-CORE format and are generated/executed in CI pipeline for the Release v0.5 components
Audit on Processes definition completed	01.07.2025	Acceptance Criteria: - All processes are defined. - Samples are available. - Maturity Level: Managed
S-CORE v1.0 specification	01.08.2025	- scope for Release v1.0 is defined in Software Architecture community and agreed with TL/PL-circle. - Feature requests for missing Release v1.0 modules are created and agreed. - POCs are done to show possible implementation approach
Reference Hardware for Release v0.5	01.10.2025	- Reference hardware and reference OS are defined. - Reference hardware farm is connected to S-CORE CI. - Integration tests on hardware are running periodically (e.g. nightly). - Define hardware relevant integration tests, e.g. performance, and corresponding KPIs
Release v0.5 feature complete	01.10.2025	- All Feature requests that are relevant for Release v0.5, including the ones resulting from the GAP analysis, are implemented according to the S-CORE software development process (requirements, architecture, dd, implementation and unit verification, integration tests)
Audit on Processes execution completed	01.10.2025
Tool Evaluation/Qualification prepared	01.10.2025	- List of all used tools available
Tool Evaluation/Qualification completed	01.11.2025
Release v0.5 certifiable	01.12.2025	The features of the 0.5 MVP are in a state to be safety certifiable. Acceptance Criteria: - Release v0.5 components have all necessary working products (also release and config mgmt documents) according to the S-CORE software development process - All corresponding tools are certified
All Audit findings resolved	01.12.2025
Release 0.5 Use Case implementation

gantt
   dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
   title S-CORE Roadmap
   excludes weekends
   tickInterval 1month
   v0.5 Feature Complete : vert, v2, 2025-10-01, 0D
   v0.5 Certifiable : vert, v2, 2025-12-01, 0D

  section Project Milestones
      Release v0.5 feature complete incl. reference QNX integration: milestone, m2, 2025-10-01, 0D
      Release v0.5 Certifiable: milestone, m3, 2025-12-01, 0D
   
  section Software Modules v0.5
      Modules Buildable: done, milestone, m4, 2025-06-02, 0D
      Features follow S-CORE Process: milestone, m5, 2025-10-01, 0D
      GAP Analysis finished: active, milestone, m6, 2025-07-02, 0D

   section Process & Tools
      Process & Tools enable Development: crit, milestone, m7, 2025-07-31, 0D
      Process & Tools enable Testing: crit, milestone, m8, 2025-07-31, 0D
      Audit on Processes definition completed: milestone, m8, 2025-09-01, 0D
      Audit on Processes execution completed: milestone, m8, 2025-10-01, 0D
      Tool Evaluation/Qualification prepared: milestone, m8, 2025-10-01, 0D
      Tool Evaluation/Qualification completed: milestone, m8, 2025-11-01, 0D
      All Audit findings resolved: milestone, m8, 2025-12-01, 0D

   section Reference Environment
      Reference Integration QNX: crit, milestone, m10, 2025-08-01, 0D      
      QNX Support : done, milestone, m11, 2025-06-15, 0D
      Reference Hardware for Release v0.5: milestone, m12, 2025-10-01, 0D

   section Software Modules v1.0
      S-CORE v1.0 specification: active, milestone, m13, 2025-08-01, 0D

Loading

Next Steps:

• Roadmap to be checked by project members, Feedback in meeting next Monday
• @johannes-esr to create tickets for milestones and add milestone description, to be finalized on Monday
• Refinement of first milestones in next meeting on Monday

[johannes-esr]

2024-03-03

Participants

@johannes-esr
@masc2023
@antonkri
@vinodreddy-g
@arsibo
@FScholPer
@AlexanderLanin
@Dk1601

Agenda

1. Review of milestone planning done in https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/434#discussioncomment-12265274

Meeting Minutes

1. • Granularity of planning:
     • Dimension One:
       • Level 0: S-CORE Project (Milestones)
       • Level 1: Sub-Project/Technical committees (Community/CFT via GitHub Label); Level of Project & Technical Leads
       • Level 2: Epic (GitHub Issues) -> assigned to exactly one/multiple Community/CFT via Label; Level of Community/CFT Leads with collaboration of Technical Leads; Planning in common meeting
       • Level 3: Ticket (GitHub Issues) -> assigned to exactly one Community/CFT via Label; Level of Developers/Community Leads/CFT Leads
     • Dimension Two: Roadmap (GitHub Milestones) on Level 0; Epics/Tickets are assigned to the "latest" milestone the Epic has to be done, but can span over multiple Milestones; Level of Technical Leads
   • How to do planning yet open; To be discussed within Process Community & Technical Leads
   • Tasks:
     • Update PMP Planning Document https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/platform_management_plan/project_management.html#planning -> @johannes-esr to check in CW11
     • Move created Milestone Tickets to "normal" Milestones -> @johannes-esr before Wednesday
     • Definition of Epics appearing in the first milestones
       • Draft to be prepared in TL meeting on Wednesday
       • Check with Communities/CFTs 10:30 - 12am -> @FScholPer to invite

[LittleHuba]

Missing architecture community label

[HartmannNico]

Just added

[johannes-esr]

2025-03-10

Participants

@johannes-esr
@antonkri
@masc2023
@vinodreddy-g
@AlexanderLanin
@Dk1601
@guysagnes
@markert-r
@LittleHuba

Agenda

• Review TL breakdown of first Milestones https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestones
  • https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestone/7
  • https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestone/8
  • https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestone/9
  • https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestone/12
  • https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestone/13
• Next steps: Breakdown of Epics by CFTs/Communities; Re-Assignment of existing Tasks to Epics

Meeting Minutes

• Epics = Workpackage which can be done in few weeks (1 - 4 weeks), must be assigned to MS, planning granularity for TL
• Tasks = Breakdown of Epic, can also have Subtasks, assigned to same MS as Epic, planning granularity for CFT/Community
• For functional grouping of Epics labels are used
• Maturity Level of a Epic are included in Epic title
• Main planning is done in score Repository

[johannes-esr]

2025-03-17

Participants

• @johannes-esr
• @masc2023
• @antonkri
• @qor-lb
• @Dk1601
• @arsibo
• @timkl7
• @markert-r

Agenda

• Presentation of proposal "How to plan"
• Planning of first milestones
• Where to put Lessons Learned?

Meeting Minutes

• @antonkri presented new planning approach
  • accepted
  • S-CORE Roadmap (view)
  • TLs to update planning document: Update Planning in PMP #697
• "Lessons learned" also to be saved in official documentation to be visible on website, mostly in Contribute section

[FScholPer]

2025-03-31

Participants

@qor-lb
@johannes-esr
@AlexanderLanin
@masc2023
@arsibo
@Dk1601
@markert-r

Agenda

• Status of each Community (2 minutes)
• Milestone planning
  • S-CORE Roadmap
  • Do we have blockers?
  • Does each of us reach the timeline goals
  • June Release -> planning?
  • Roadmap of the Epics (priority, start date / due date). Does each epic has a subtask?
• Questions / Problems?

Meeting Minutes

• Status
  • Tooling: Epic: (Initial) Set-up basic repository & build infrastructure #585 (comment)
  • Logging: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/770 (gap analysis)

[johannes-esr]

2025-04-14

Participants

• @johannes-esr
• @TomFleischmann
• @markert-r
• @antonkri
• @FScholPer
• @masc2023
• @arsibo
• @DanielSteinkeSDV
• Daniel Klotz

Meeting Minutes

• Review of S-CORE Roadmap Project
• TLs need Board for Change Requests (Feature Modification & Component Modification Label) -> @markert-r creates board
• @antonkri checks with @ramceb regarding location of FEO tickets

[johannes-esr]

2025-04-28

Participants

@johannes-esr
@markert-r
@arsibo
@AlexanderLanin
@LittleHuba
@qor-lb
@masc2023
@guysagnes
@dneail1601
@FScholPer
@antonkri

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

• Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view)
  • General: Keep tickets up to date!
  • Communication, Logging & Base Libs will be published until next week
  • FEO: Tickets to be planned
  • Persistency
  • Testing: Current approach shall be presented
  • Process
  • Architecture
  • Infrastructure

[FScholPer]

2025-05-05

Participants

@johannes-esr
@AlexanderLanin
@markert-r
@arsibo
@dneail1601
@LittleHuba
@antonkri
@qor-lb
@masc2023
@FScholPer

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

• Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view)
  • Infrastructure and tooling
    • Community not stuffed enough -> at least 6 full time needed
    • Unclear priorities and scaled like 100 devs -> many wish tickets and no focus
    • gitlint really needed?!
    • https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/977 ??
  • 321 Issues open in main repo
• Multi-repo apprach
  • Enables requirement linkage & traceability between repositories
• Process audit next Monday

[FScholPer]

2025-05-12

Participants

@johannes-esr
@AlexanderLanin
@markert-r
@arsibo
@dneail1601
@LittleHuba
@antonkri
@masc2023
@FScholPer
@guysagnes

Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Review Feature Planning

• Infrastructure & Tooling
  • @AlexanderLanin mentioned that all repositories can now build documentation. Multi repository is still in progress (Will take about about 1 week to finish).
  • Rust on qnx, multirepo setup, linking between repositories.
  • @AlexanderLanin proposed to do a regular demo meeting.
  • Demo proposal : https://sdvworkinggroup.slack.com/archives/C0894QGRZDM/p1747037795081439?thread_ts=1747037764.219969&cid=C0894QGRZDM"
  • Question about state of template repositories from @antonkri. @AlexanderLanin answered that a decision was made that one part tests without and the other with the template
• Testing
  • @dneail1601 mentioned that Concept of C++ is finished. The community wants to wait until real production code is available not only demo code -> https://github.com/qorix-group/Score-Testing/blob/main/Proposal/Data%20flow%20tests%20with%20gtest%20combined%20with%20extended%20unit%20tests%20-%20compilable.cpp
  • @AlexanderLanin said that we should order the tests in order of duration.
  • Daniel said that their is a discussion if only unit tests should be fixed by the developers and the broken other tests should be fixed be the testers
  • @AlexanderLanin asked about release strategy meeting. Daniel proposed to postpone the discussion until their is real code.
  • @antonkri proposed to the test community that we need a test plan who does what and so on.
  • TL will check
• FEO
  • Currently they wait until the Process Pilot is finished
  • @markert-r said they should use the blocking label
  • @antonkri We need feature requirements and epics for described for each release (due date 05.30 for existing and the rest 06.06.)
  • Until next meeting setup cft for common libs should be done -> TL should do that in next TL meeting
• Persistency
  • Feature priority for file system base unclear
    • C++ api & implementation already there in common libs
    • Com & Persistency will make a meeting AI: @LittleHuba & @guysagnes
  • C++ Class Result dependency to common/base libs
  • Security Layer in Persistency should be discussed in the architecture community
• Logging
  • Components Requirements next step
  • Gap Analysis is finished
• Communication
  • Next task Requirements & Architecture fitting to pilots to be created
  • Requirements sync mechanism has to be defined in each company
  • Proposal for Snapshot mechanism to feo already there: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/861#discussioncomment-13040972
• Question if feature architecture is interconnection between features or if it is high level description -> should be high level description -> discussion with @hoe-jo to be done

[qor-lb]

2025-05-19

Participants

• @guysagnes
• @dneail1601
• @markert-r
• @AlexanderLanin
• @antonkri
• @FScholPer
• Padmakumara Malikaarachige Damith Lakmal

Agenda

1. Review Feature Planning

Meeting Minutes

to 1.

• Infrastructure
  • "initial" process & tools enable development done (basic setup)
    • Further development for tool support once concrete gaps are identified
    • Pilots to identify gaps in basic setups
    • Clear responsibilities for infrastructure in both C++ & Rust pilots to enable gap analysis in community
    • Epic: Process Pilot #760
• Communication
  • LoLa is now buildable; 0.5 gap analysis on-going
  • To be clarified: Com API for 0.5 or 1.0 (+ Rust support)
• Testing
  • Testing examples for 0.5 modules in progress and planned until end of May
  • Epic: Process Pilot #760 to also target piloting the verification as a follow-up
• FEO
  • missing attendees, skipped
• Persistency
  • Feature for file system alignment with existing part of baseLib to be taken to Gap analysis
  • Security Layer in Persistency rely on system, no additional security parameter to be handled
  • Requirement review based on: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/pr-1069/process/process_areas/requirements_engineering/guidance/requirements_inspection_checklist.html
  • Persistence Feature KVS
    • Final review/rework on feature level
    • Draft architecture based on template (Pilot)
    • Draft component requirement based on template (Pilot)
  • C++ KVS implementation
    • PoC Implementation of Wrapper over Rust
    • Decision: specific implementation of C++ Library
• Logging
  • Logging is now buildable; 0.5 gap analysis on-going
  • missing attendees, skipped

[johannes-esr]

2025-05-26

Participants

@johannes-esr
@Dk1601
@timkl7
@antonkri
@AlexanderLanin
@arsibo

Meeting Minutes & Agenda

• Review Roadmap
  • Communication:
    • Epic: LoLa buildable & existing tests runnable #586 can be marked as done
    • Epic: Functional gap analysis for feature "Communication" #881 will be done by @LittleHuba
    • Epic: Create requirements for feature "Communication" #886, Epic: Create architecture artifacts for feature "Communication" #937 will be checked until next Monday
  • Logging:
    • Epic: Logging buildable & existing tests runnable #587 must be cleaned up, to be checked if everything builds
    • Epic: Functional gap analysis for feature "Logging" #884 to be updated in Logging meeting tomorrow
    • Epic: Create requirements for feature "Logging" #939, #942 in progress, to be updated in Logging meeting tomorrow
  • FEO:
    • Overview of what CI jobs are running
    • #883, to be checked if something is missing
    • Epic: Create requirements for feature "FEO" #938, Epic: Create architecture artifacts for feature "FEO" #941: first PRs are present
  • Persistency:
    • Update to be checked afterwards
  • Testing:
    • PoC for Persistency in review
    • Will be presented on testing meeting wednesday, afterwards roll out
  • Process: no representative present
  • Infrastructure:
    • Problems with proxies, to be analyzed
    • Workstream meetings organized: https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/1095#discussioncomment-13248530

Offline report
Summary for the Persistency FT

• Feature Request for Persistency · Issue #95 · eclipse-score/score -> closed
  Focus on Key-Value Store, File system aspect will be part of the gap analysis

• Persistency Feature KVS

  • Final release on feature level
  • Review started: architecture based on template (Pilot)
  • Review started: component requirement based on template (Pilot)

• C++ KVS implementation

  • Implementation started: specific implementation of C++ Library

• Info - Requirements handling follows Reference:

  • requirements_inspection_checklist
  • requirements_templates

• Clarification requested

  • How should be the separation on module level in respect to selected language?
    -> Proposition a single repository containing the different language (Rust / C++)
    -> Process adaptation for the template to be adapted
  • Do we have the plan to use at least C++ 2020 and when?
    -> Question related to maps handling inside C++ 2017
  • How is the design constrain to be taken in account for dynamical types (e.g. String, Vector, …)
    -> MISRA rules reported type – Ref. rules 21.6.1 / 21.6.2

[johannes-esr]

2026-06-02

Participants

@johannes-esr
@vinodreddy-g
@guysagnes
@AlexanderLanin
@arsibo
@PiotrKorkus
@Dk1601
@FScholPer
@aschemmel-tech
@markert-r

Meeting Minutes

• Review of S-CORE Roadmap (view)
• Communication: No update available
• Logging:
  • Buildable: Probably can be closed after adding README file
  • Gap Analysis & Requirements ongoing
• FEO:
  • Gap Analysis, Requirements & Architecture ongoing
• Persistency:
  • Also tracked in process pilots
• Testing:
  • ITF set up in progress
  • CFT Lead will be taken over by @PiotrKorkus
• Process:
  • Update tickets that cannot be done to another epic
• Infrastructure:
  • Rust started, overall ongoing
  • C++ Stream needed? -> @eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads
• Baselibs
  • Feature Team needed -> @eclipse-score/automotive-score-technical-leads

[FScholPer]

2025-06-16

Participants

@masc2023
@FScholPer
@markert-r
@antonkri
@qor-lb
@PiotrKorkus
@guysagnes
@TomFleischmann
Daniel Klotz

Agenda

• S-CORE Roadmap

Meeting Minutes

##Modules builable

• Persistency Full test Coverage will be there until next week

QNX Support

• Process for : Safe Use of QNX -> AI: @aschemmel-tech
• QNX Support -> Refinement Meeting should be set up -> AI: @antonkri

Functional Gap Analysis

• Architectural Gap Analysis is in Progress currently
• Persistency: KVS already done but Filesystem open
• Communication -> no update

Process Definition Audit Completed

• ITF will probably not feasible until End of July -> Change to another milestone because not needed for next Audit

Process and Tools Enable Development

• Rust is ongoing
• @markert-r will request @FScholPer to get some support for initial Setup

Functional Gap Analysis S-CORE v.0.5 Completed

• Also Planning finished is needed for implementation of the gaps
• Persistency: Filesystem is part of 1.0 and should be created as feature request

Other Questions

• Bypass of review -> posponed until next TL Onsite workshop
• Persistency is lacking Committers -> Current comitters are https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/teams/automotive-score-committers
• @antonkri raised some concerns about the current implementation of the multirepo -> @markert-r will invite to a meeting

[FScholPer]

2026-06-23

Participants

@FScholPer
@qor-lb
@PiotrKorkus
@masc2023

Agenda

• S-CORE Roadmap

Meeting Minutes

Testing

• The duedate of some ITF Tickets have been moved to later date. Could be last week of July

Process

• Friday Audit needs Quality Management until end of this week
• @qor-lb asked about the status of the Audit findings: Tickets created -> https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/releases/tag/v1.0.0 & https://github.com/eclipse-score/process_description/releases/tag/v1.0.1
• Infrastructure Community had meeting with Process Community to align gap analysis
• Where is the first Assessment to go over the Pilots -> October
• First Version of Tool Requirements already merged in doc-as-code repository
• Could be an overlap between Tool Requirements and Sphinx Needs Extension Implementation / Commercial Offering
• Doc-as-Code not acessible from main S-CORE page

[anmittag]

2026-07-20

participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @ChrisR9911
• @odra

Agenda

• recap of external Repos in S-CORE (e.g. lohmann-jason, hedron, etc.)
  - hedron: there is nothing which useable => do not use in S-CORE
  - we try to push into the fork
• GitHubAction Fork SetupBazel
  - we try to push it upstream, fork or create for our own @AlexanderLanin
• Cleaning Up of V0.8
  - Teams shall clean up or shift to v0.9 issues
• Preparation for V0.9
  - https://github.com/eclipse-score/score/milestone/31
  - Module verification report: how to automate? (draft idea, AI support from Process side, dependable element) => we discuss that point in the Infrastructure Community
• Braking Changes: BASELIBS, COMMUNICATION might have a breaking change => update next week; DOCS-AS-CODE: versioning of requirements; SOMEIP-GW integration tbd.

[anmittag]

2026-07-27

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @ChrisR9911
• @odra
• @fscr

Agenda

• Checking Status of cleaning up v0.8
• Checking Status of preparing v0.9
• Breaking Changes: COM shared lib will be moved from baselibs to com => breaking changes, everyone has to adapt
• making, satisfied by / belongs to to become mandatory for feat_req and comp_req following the meta model in one of the upcoming docs-as-code releases
• v0.9
  - orchestrator will not be anymore in reference integration of v0.9

[FScholPer]

2026-08-03

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @ChrisR9911
• @odra
• @fscr
• @aschemmel-tech
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• CPP / Rust Naming Convention
  - Q: how can we organize having central name spaces ?
  - suggestion: we use the baselibs definitions as base for all https://github.com/eclipse-score/baselibs/blob/main/docs/cpp-style-guide.md
  - create an issue for the necessary remaining activities @anmittag => architecture community / tech leads => Define General CPP / Rust Naming Conventions #3150
  - CodeQL Config of COM shall be re-used - clarification and roll out to be planned after the summer break to be planned @anmittag CodeQL Config of COM shall be re-used #3151
• Repos Status
• Docs-As-Code Release V6 with PRs for almost all Repos, if support for the update is needed contact @AlexanderLanin
  - main change: https://eclipse-score.github.io/docs-as-code/main/how-to/mounts
  - score and process are already updated
• ASIL Level - Target for v1.0 and beyond
  - for v1.0 ASIL B, Clean-Up of the Stakeholder Req. @anmittag => IntermediateSafetyGoalASILB #3119
  - fyi: some public funded projects using SCORE are looking for ASIL D - not finalized their requirements
• Bazel updates to 8.6 or 8.7?
  - info: com supports a mix of bazel versions
  - ref_int needs one version used from all
  - decision we go for 8.6

[anmittag]

2026-08-10

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @ChrisR9911
• @odra
• @fscr
• @aschemmel-tech
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• module documentation: based on https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/design_decisions/DR-001-proc.html we have to clean up https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/modules/index.html and move the module documentation into the repositories, @anmittag will adapt the score main page accordingly in alignment with the teams

• Restructure starting page module_template#131

• CodeQL approach of COM into TIME
  - time managed to adapt CodeQL
  - providing it centrally is not easily possible
  - other approaches are not available yet => check status with @clemens-k

[anmittag]

2026-08-17

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @ChrisR9911
• @odra
• @fscr
• @aschemmel-tech
• @mlangerwisch
• @MaximilianSoerenPollak

Agenda

• status release v0.9:
  q: milestone is 09.September, how is the progress
  baselibs will do a release with some small breaking changes this week
  com no blockers, heading for the next release after baselibs
  per no breaking changes, some cleanups, info: rust is some kind of unmaintained; help welcome
  sec not planned to be added in v0.9 reference integration https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/2839?sort=new#discussioncomment-17976745
  tim no blockers, cleaning up on docu side,
  i: tools are unifying toolversions in module.bazel etc Validate and adopt the S-CORE global toolchain configuration lifecycle#448
  request: docs-as-code updates required to have the module`s documentation integrated into the release
  i: DR-008 will be discussed tomorrow in the ref_int meeting, support requested => risk impact on release

• module_template: "score/component_name/src" structure => proposal to drop the "src" directory
  q: any argument against deleting the src folder below the component?
  - opinion A: if we have docs and tests subfolders as well it should be a subfolder for src
  - opinion B: src does not make sense as it is also used for public interfaces
  - opinion C: similar look and feel should be used across all modules
  - opinion D: it should be free for every team to choose the substructure
  - proposal, sync with different teams and find a common solution on it

• Basic Namings are mismatching, see https://eclipse-score.github.io/.github/#naming
  we should try to align it and include it in the release check list Release v0.9 common checklist #3186

[masc2023]

Based on the module_template discussion, there is a DR raised here, may be part of the next meeting
#3194

@anmittag , can you please check that next meeting, and if fine, please approve, thank you

[AlexanderLanin]

2026-08-24

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023 (not able to attend, @aschemmel-tech also absent)
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• Status: renaming process -> process_description (see https://eclipse-score.github.io/.github/#naming)

  • rename & release process_description (2.1.0): done
  • update & release docs-as-code (8.0.0): done
  • update & release process_description (2.1.1) - due to cyclic dependency: done
  • update & release score_platform (0.7.0): done
  • update & release modules (ideally bottom up, i.e. start with baselibs): info we have to follow the dependencies
  • update reference_integration
  • all modules have to create a new release, @AlexanderLanin is trying to provide PRs for the docs-as-code v8 upgrade

• Status v0.9

  • Today "shall" be Infrastructure freeze: still in progress: module_verification_report (@antonkri , @FScholPer )
  • ToDoes: Release v0.9 common checklist #3186
    • Inspection Checklists required => Module Verification Report to see the real status of the modules
    • Required Tools Updates: e.g. DocsAsCode v8.0, centralized llvmcov (change code coverage #3137)?
  • DR-0008 for Reference Integration implemented (https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/design_decisions/DR-008-int.html)
    • time and config management are failing

[antonkri]

2026-08-31

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023 (not able to attend, @aschemmel-tech also absent)
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• Status v0.9

  • Release candidate v0.9 reference_integration#320 & Release v0.9 common checklist #3186
    • Status per target module
      • Baselibs (0.2.12)
      • Communication (0.4.0)
      • Persistency (0.3.5) (@antonkri to double check)
      • Orchestrator (0.1.1) (@pawelrutkaq should be removed)
      • Kyron (0.1.3) (@pawelrutkaq to switch to 1.4)
      • Lifecycle (0.5.0)
      • Logging (---) (@arsibo to create a new release)
      • Time (---) (@lavrovvalera to create a new release)
      • Config Management (@antonkri to double check)
    • Status per tooling module
      • crates (0.0.11) (@pawelrutkaq will check and may be raise to 0.0.12 in ref-int)
      • itf (0.5.0)
      • tooling (2.0.2) (ok for 0.9, for 0.10 we need to start working on migration to 2.1.0 as this brings a breaking change for ref_int -> @PiotrKorkus )
      • platform (0.7.1)
      • bazel_platforms (1.0.0)
      • test_scenarios (0.4.1)
      • docs-as-code (8.0.1) (@AlexanderLanin should be switched to a newer version, e.g. 8.1.0)
      • process_description (2.1.2)
      • bazel_cpp_toolchains (0.5.4, @antonkri raise this topic for next release, as modules may need to change a lot of things to migrate to the newer version)
  • What is the status of DR-8 implementation?
    • Add resolved-dependency override mechanism for DR-008 reference_integration#278 -> merged
    • DR-008 Option 4: two-stage test-execution workflow (PR 2 of 2) reference_integration#280 -> in Progress
  • Module verification report
    • feat: module verification report / complex templates docs-as-code#763
    • Should be integrated for v0.9 for baselibs, persistency, logging. @antonkri will prepare a PR
  • Release notes
    • Create a commit with inital release notes for modules -> @antonkri
  • Should we move release by one week?

• Show & Tell

  • https://github.com/orgs/eclipse-score/discussions/categories/show-and-tell
  • Provide the link to the tooling for potential improvements -> @antonkri

[antonkri]

LOPs is taken over to the release ticket: #3186

[antonkri]

2026-09-07

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023 (not able to attend, @aschemmel-tech also absent)
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• Status v0.9
  • Release candidate v0.9 reference_integration#320

[FScholPer]

2026-09-14

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023 (not able to attend, @aschemmel-tech also absent)
• REL: @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• Code Coverage tooling implementation
  • new repo added
  • All modules should switch to using the new repo with unified code coverage tooling implementation. (there is an open pr for baselibs).
• Let us use the release meeting next week Tuesday to have LeLe for the release creation
• Wish list for next release
  • Please link code to requirements and unit -test to requirements and component requirements to feature_features. And please check if you fulfill aous
  • Fill out inspection checklist
  • Please use this link for the overview: https://eclipse-score.github.io/.github/#traceability

[anmittag]

2026-09-21

Participants

• TLC: x @anmittag x @antonkri x @FScholPer
• INF: x @AlexanderLanin / x @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: x @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: x @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @odra
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

• Status and Planning S-CORE Roadmap

• REL: LL for 0.9 planned inside regular meeting

• INF: nothing special for 0.10 planned (see QNX topic in BAS)

• BAS: QNX jobs stability is very bad => Eclipse is in discussion with QNX (@AlexanderLanin)

  Overcome stability issues when downloading external dependencies on GH Runners
  common --experimental_repository_downloader_retries=10
  common --experimental_scale_timeouts=2.0
  common --http_connector_attempts=10
  common --http_connector_retry_max_timeout=30s
  common --http_timeout_scaling=4.0

• LCM: nothing cross functionals planned for 0.10

• LOG: nothing cross functionals planned for 0.10, focus on the quality goals

• PER: nothing cross functionals planned for 0.10, focus on the quality goals, license check is not complete e.g. bazel-dependencies

• TIM: nothing cross functionals planned for 0.10, docu improve, quality,

• SEC: is planning to add the features in 1.0, a step by step integration into the reference integration during 0.10 would be appreciated to avoid big bangs

  First stable release of Crypto and integration to reference integration repo
  Support of basic crypto functionalities (Hashing, MAC, AES encryption/decryption, Signature verification and generation, Key generation) with OpenSSL crypto provider.
  Integration of CryptoKi PKCS11 crypto driver
  Integration of PQC Primula (library + crypto driver)
  Configuration concept for Crypto
  Support of basic certificate management features (parsing, verification of cert and cert chain, trust store concept,..)

• AutoSD as a functional platform for 1.0? @odra is preparing several PRs => @FScholPer will have a look into it from Platform side
  > included in central toolchain: https://github.com/eclipse-score/module_template/blob/main/score.bazelrc/score_toolchain.bazelrc
  > platform assumptions: https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/requirements/platform_assumptions/index.html#platform-assumptions

[anmittag]

2026-09-28

Participants

• TLC: X @anmittag X @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: X @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: X @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @odra
• @mlangerwisch

Agenda

[X] FCP, some votes are missing for #3269 / #3196
[X] AutoSD as Platform for SCORE https://gist.github.com/odra/783e1121c68fca83c05c413dd5f6d20f
> comments:
>> ITF should get an AutoSD option=> enrich ITF
>> should be similar treated as QNX
>> each module should test the AutoSD compatibility => adding the version to the individual build system
>> ref_integration should ensure the "completeness" of the stack
>> info: there are no additional license issues with AutoSD
>> AutoSD is just QM, so there is no safety manual available => check the "safety system requirements" @odra recommended
[X] Status of "Feature Requirements" https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/features/index.html
> all Requirements are maintained

[lurtz]

IIRC ITF is meant to be generic. I already extended the ITF QEMU plugin to pass additional parameters to QEMU so that it supports running e.g. Ubuntu and has an optional disk parameter for passing a smaller disk image with test data.

The images passed to ITF plugin on the other hand are build using platform specific code. However this code will not be accepted into the ITF repo.

[anmittag]

2026-10-05

Participants

• TLC: X @anmittag X @antonkri X @FScholPer
• INF: X @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: X @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @odra
• @mlangerwisch
• @PhilippM-qorix

Agenda

• bot generated PRs, please take them into your daily work, overview https://eclipse-score.github.io/.github/#policy-sync

• Updates or Module infos
  > BAS: release done last week; breaking change inside; currently removing other deprecated parts
  > COM: release done last week, not inside ref-int so far;
  > LCM: nothing to be mentioned
  > LOG: Feature renaming and two new components to come
  > PER: merge into ref-int done, issues with rust and cpp in parallel
  > SEC: setting up a path towards re-int by mid of nov
  > TIM: q ramp up
  > TOOL: https://eclipse-score.github.io/.github/#versions?category=modules&integration=included
  > PRC: Updates for some inconsistencies

[AlexanderLanin]

Bot Overview

• Renovate: Updates score to score bazel dependencies via score bazel_registry. Currently open PRs
• Dependabot: Invididual repos configure it themselves. Usually for anything non bazel. Currently open PRs
• score-bot: Align score internal policies. Overview

Expectation: all of these are merged - or problems reported.

[anmittag]

2026-10-12

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: X @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @odra
• @mlangerwisch
• @PhilippM-qorix
• @fscr
• @ChrisR9911

Agenda

• ubuntu-latest update https://github.blog/changelog/2026-09-17-ubuntu-26-generally-available-and-latest-migration/
  > ubuntu is automatically updating, so please have a look if you would be affected
  > @AlexanderLanin will replace ubuntu latest with ubuntu-24
• Introduction of Verification Report Template by @antonkri
  > current version: https://eclipse-score.github.io/reference_integration/main/verification_report/index.html
  > all Teams shall follow the given template, to get an overview for each Feature and Module in the same "look and feel"
• DR8 workflow overview - https://github.com/PiotrKorkus/reference_integration/actions/runs/38163445215?pr=5
  > please review the failed tests to decide tomorrow how to go on
• Updating Bazel Dependencies
  > e.g. rules-cc 0.19
  > how to roll-out? => such roll-outs shall be discussed during this meeting
  > discuss in the infra community

[FScholPer]

2026-10-19

Participants

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: X @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @odra
• @mlangerwisch
• @PhilippM-qorix
• @fscr
• @ChrisR9911

Agenda

• Downloadable images for S-Core v1.0

  • Example, how it could look like: https://github.com/eclipse-leda/leda-distro/releases
  • AutoSD und EB downloadable image would be great -> ask @opajonk and @ondra
    • AutoSD downloadable images (build it but do not upload it with every PR, upload per Release):
      • Pi 4
      • Qemu
  • QNX probably will not allow to provide a downloadable image for everyone -> check
  • Vanila Phi Image -> @FScholPer
    • Pi 5, see ticket (Add Raspberry pi image in ref int reference_integration#403)
  • Demo Showcase -> @antonkri

• Showcase: S-Core process end-to-end

  • Which modules/components could be used to show s-core process end-to-end?
    • persistency -> @PandaeDo, present current status upcoming TL meeting on Thursday.
    • some components from baselibs module -> @aschemmel-tech, present current status upcoming TL meeting on Thursday.
  • Clarify with module responsibles and set-up tracking

• Feedback Verification report

  • Any findings? Any inconsistencies?
  • Template folder: https://github.com/eclipse-score/docs-as-code/tree/main/src/needs_templates

• S-Core Alignment Board

  • S-CORE Alignment Board
  • Review the status every second week.

[AlexanderLanin]

QNX probably will not allow to provide a downloadable image for everyone -> check

Discussed this some months ago in the bi-weekly QNX meeting. --> Not allowed.

[anmittag]

2026-10-26

• TLC: @anmittag @antonkri @FScholPer
• INF: @AlexanderLanin / @MaximilianSoerenPollak
• PRC: @masc2023
• REL: X @PiotrKorkus / @pawelrutkaq
• BAS: @4og
• COM: @LittleHuba
• CFG: @michaelsaborov
• FEO: @johannes-esr
• KYR: @pawelrutkaq
• LCM: @S-MOHAMD
• LOG: @arsibo / @rmaddikery
• ORC: @pawelrutkaq
• PER: @umaucher
• SEC: @sunildevda
• TIM: @lavrovvalera
• @odra
• @mlangerwisch
• @PhilippM-qorix
• @fscr
• @ChrisR9911
• Ahmed Eleksa (BMW)
• Fakhreldin Abdelkhalik (eJad)

Agenda

• Release v0.10 @antonkri (one week to go)
  • How far we are with the integration of modules latest version? some of the modules are already bumped
  • Is DR8 up and running for v0.10? finished by the end of the day => update in ref int meeting
  • What about Unit-test coverage measurement in the Module Verification Reports? => @AlexanderLanin
• Handling and needs for dev vs non-dev dependencies @umaucher:

  Handling and needs for dev vs non-dev dependency's (see fix: mark pip, score_rules_imagefs and googletest as non-dev dependencies persistency#434 )
  Modules should keep their non-dev dependencies to a required minimum, ideally only target dependencies are non-dev dependencies.
  DR-008-Int tooling allows for alignment with reference_integration for:
  > module versions
  > toolchains
  > build configurations
  > DR8 integration workflow by PiotrKorkus · Pull Request #398 · eclipse-score/reference_integration
  > further discuss in the ref int meeting

• depandabot / renovate updates and config @umaucher
  > do we need both?
  > generic setup / config for all repos?
  > tagging of cicd-workflows/actions
  => bot: central-renovate and specific dependabots should be used so far
  => tagging: currently we stick to commits and @AlexanderLanin is checking how to continue, but in future commits are still the only point of truth
• Need for https://eclipse-score.github.io/score/main/contribute/development/cpp/coding_guidelines.html#code-style (cpp coding guidelines)

  name space match folder structure ?
  impact on all PR's like kvs: apply C++ idiom and class layout rules persistency#566 (+ ~5 more)
  backward compatibility?

• codeql setup and handling (various different setups in different modules, no documentation in cicd-workflow)

  central vs module based: midterm central version prefered

• location of examples and their implementation @PiotrKorkus
  > feat: add KVS showcase example binaries persistency#573 (comment) design of module examples
• 100% linkage
  > 31 of 31 work products realize a process work product and are built from its "template" this is not maintainable