[SystemSafety] [System Safety] FOSDEM talk by Paul Sherwood

[Prof. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin]

On 2025-02-12 13:39 , Paul Sherwood wrote:
>>
>> But now that you know that Edition 3 says stuff about multicore, you can take steps to .......
> I'm much more interested in safety than in compliance, so I won't be spending any of my limited 
> remaining time contributing to the IEC/ISO walled garden.

If, as you say, you are mainly interested in automotive, then IEC 61508 itself isn't of much 
interest to you. But you are talking about safety generally, there is nothing in what you say 
specifically restricted to road-automotive, and if you do that, then you would need to engage with 
the status of IEC 61508 as a Basic Safety Standard.

I don't sympathise with any attitude that wants to contrast "safety" with "compliance [to 
standards]". I respect a choice not to engage in standardisation activities (for any of a variety of 
reasons). But the world would be a much worse place if there weren't any standards for such 
important matters as E/E/PE safety. As arguably was the case before 1997.

HSC/HSE was initiated by the HSWA 1974. That was a decade after Aberfan. Then a decade later came 
Piper Alpha and the Kings Cross fire. I suspect that is what kick-started work on standards such as 
IEC 61508. I should ask Ron.

>> Having worked on it for a decade plus, I would say that the chances of changing the business 
>> model of the IEC are approximately zero.
>
> Your pessimism seems entirely justified, but I shall keep calling them out.

I don't think it is appropriate to "call them out" (in the usual meaning of those words) unless you 
have a concrete, practical idea of what can replace it. The fundamental point is that if the IEC 
didn't charge money for its publications, there would be no IEC. And if there weren't an IEC, we'd 
all be in a right technical mess. An alternative would be for governments to fund standardisation. 
But it is not something governments like to (be seen to) spend money on. It is politically easier to 
try to encourage industry to do so.

Complaining about standards is a bit like complaining about traffic regulations. There are many 
people who like to do so who have never lived in a country in which there aren't any.

> ...... you're talking about owners (or employees?) of companies in industries where IEC 61508 is 
> mandatory. 

There are no industries in which "IEC 61508 is mandatory". "Mandatory" is tied to regulations. 
Regulations are laws. Laws are not tied to industries, but to countries/jurisdictions. There are 
countries whose regulations mandate use of specific technical standards. And others, such as the US 
and UK, where they do not.

> I'm talking about (mainly) automotive safety practitioners and assessors.

In which case, IEC 61508 is not relevant. ISO 26262 and various associated standards are applicable.

>
> I'm engaging, and I'm encouraging others to engage. Perhaps we could tone down the sarcasm a bit, 
> and folks with thinner skins might be more willing to get involved?

I am unaware of engaging in any sarcasm. If you mean toning down critique then, as you will have 
noticed, I'm very much a spade-caller.

PBL

Prof. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin
Causalis Limited/Causalis IngenieurGmbH, Bielefeld, Germany
Tel: +49 (0)521 3 29 31 00