Homepage GitHub

About the Drone SIG category

The UAVCAN Drone SIG is a new place for the discussion of drone (UAV) domain-specific regulated data types and related application-level conventions.

This SIG will be managed by Nuno Marques (@TSC21) of Auterion AG.

The previous team has developed the following items that may or may not be relevant for this SIG:

Bi-weekly call

This forum will be the main discussion platform amended with optional bi-weekly calls between the participants. The participation in the periodic calls is not mandatory because all relevant information will be available here on the forum.

The call is to take place every two weeks at https://zoom.us/j/567710856; the next call is due at:

2020-05-26T16:00:00Z

Be aware of the UAVCAN weekly dev call. It is not directly related to this SIG, but the participants who are interested in the development of the core standard are welcome to join.

Helpful resources

Please raise organizational issues directly in this thread.

There is already a weekly call happening where the ongoing spec drafts are being discussed. The call can be found here: https://www.dronecode.org/calendar/

The next call is happening on May 26th:

Dial in link:
Join Zoom Meeting

Thanks, Lorenz. Ramon suggested we re-evaluate the schedule to make sure it is optimal for all interested participants.

I’m not sure this is something the UAVCAN community wants to drive @pavel.kirienko. My comments in our dev call (i.e. that we should have a more document-driven process) were made in some ignorance of this existing process but looking at it now it seems this call (which Amazon hasn’t participated in) was driven by industry with Dronecode and Auterion coordinating it. Shouldn’t we allow this process to continue without our interference? We always wanted V1 to be a core specification that industry built standards out of. I think this is the right inflection point to let this happen.

As I explained on the dev call yesterday, the current approach where the decisions are made ad-hoc at the weekly call (the schedule is bi-weekly but in reality, UAVCAN is discussed every week) is unsustainable. I call for a more organized workflow where the proposals are formulated, refined, and discussed in an asynchronous manner via a text-based medium such as this forum. This arrangement has been shown to work well because this is how UAVCAN itself was created.

We need to ensure that our decisions are based on well-formulated business requirements and there is a paper trail for every major design decision that can be revised and referred to in future design iterations. I think it is impossible to arrange a sensible process based on periodic voice conversations even if they are amended with an accompanying set of call notes.

I also want to make sure that the process is open enough to ensure that new members can be onboarded quickly with the existing context being easily publicly available. The current arrangement does not meet these expectations.

The above does not mean that there should be a new call but it does mean that it shall be demoted from the main place where all decisions are made to an auxiliary facility that is used merely to synchronize minutiae contextual details, exchange news, and plan short-term activities. Initially, I did not mean to propose a new time and I especially did not want to create another track that would compete with Dronecode’s but it was suggested by Ramon so I followed his recommendation. I am open to other arrangements as long as the issues above are considered.

The fact that we host the SIG(s) on the forum does not necessarily mean that the core maintainers are to be directly involved in the design process; the fact that we list Nuno (as opposed to myself or Scott) as the moderator is to illustrate that.

I just think we should let this group self-organize. Zubax can participate in this and even Amazon but UAVCAN should simply provide support.

I agree but I think where our perception differs is the amount of support that is adequate. The UAVCAN drone standard is something that adopters will rely on to make judgements about UAVCAN so it is our responsibility to make sure the result is up to standards. Right now it is not on track to get there.

Just had a call with Lorenz. We will avoid immediate drastic changes to the existing workflow to avoid turning off the existing participants but I would like to eventually turn this forum into the main place for discussions related to the UAVCAN Drone standard.

The review of the existing messages (BMS, ESC, etc.) will be taking place here starting now, augmented by the bi-weekly call as stated above. I would like to also post the call notes here because the Google Doc driven approach is not working well.

We will see what to do next depending on how things develop.

FYI @TSC21 @mrpollo.