Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Write documents of the Core/Universe roadmap agreed at the December TSC #3

Open
Tracked by #1
kenji-miyake opened this issue Dec 21, 2021 · 4 comments
Open
Tracked by #1
Labels
status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned)

Comments

@kenji-miyake
Copy link
Contributor

kenji-miyake commented Dec 21, 2021

As discussed at the December TSC, we'll introduce explicit prototyping phases and change the merge criteria.

However, with the limited information, people cannot concretely understand how and how much Autoware will get high-quality and safety. We have to show a roadmap to the goal so that everyone can understand and agree.

Specifically, since the current Autoware.Auto's rules seem to be biased to ISO 26262, we'll propose comprehensive system-wide approaches like ISO/PAS 21448 and ISO/TR 4804.
We have to recognize we cannot build a perfect system from the beginning and that it requires some iterations.

To accomplish the approach, there are a lot of tasks. We should take the balance of each activity and improve the quality step by step.
Also, since it's difficult to guarantee everything by AWF with its limited resources, we have to show the area of responsibility and what is required for the users.

@kenji-miyake kenji-miyake changed the title Write documents of the Core/Universe Roadmap agreed at the December TSC Write documents of the Core/Universe roadmap agreed at the December TSC Dec 21, 2021
@kenji-miyake
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tier IV will provide a proposal of such documents soon.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 24, 2022

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

@stale stale bot added the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label Mar 24, 2022
@kenji-miyake
Copy link
Contributor Author

A draft was added by #21. We have to add a bit more descriptions.

@stale stale bot removed the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label Mar 24, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 24, 2022

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity.

@stale stale bot added the status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned) label May 24, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
status:stale Inactive or outdated issues. (auto-assigned)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant