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

[Paul Sherwood]

On 2025-02-12 14:31, Prof. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin 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.

Hmmm, I guess you didn't actually consider any of the content in my 
presentation, then.

> 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.

Yup. I'm engaging, as I said.

> 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.

Agreed, except that I do *differentiate* "safety" from "compliance [to 
standards]" based on experience.

<snip>
> 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.

It's entirely feasible for a group of experts to develop standards on a 
voluntary basis **without** an organisation like IEC locking up their 
results.

> 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 was responding to your phrase "have been required to use IEC 61508 
since it came into existence". If the usage is not mandatory, on what 
basis have they been "required to use" it?

>> 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.

Again, I explained this in my talk.

>> 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.

I meant your tone, not the critique. It's entirely possible to 
spade-call without treating folks as if they are idiots.

br
Paul