On Sonntag, 3. November 2013 16:28:56 CEST, Albert Astals Cid wrote:=0A= > El Diumenge, 3 de novembre de 2013, a les 13:24:40, Richard Hughes va= =0A> escriure:=0A>> On 3 November 2013 12:32, Albert Astals Cid wrote:=0A>>> I am all for listing "high quality applications"= , it's just =0A>>> that this just=0A>>> doesn't help.=0A>> =0A>> Sure i= t does. We're not going to get AppData files for sodipodi,=0A>> cinepai= nt or arora any time soon. =0A>=0A> But you said anyone can write one a= nd submit it to Fedora for =0A> submission, you =0A> also said they're = pretty trivial to write, so why do you think =0A> I (or someone =0A> el= se) can not write one for sodipodi and submit it?=0A=0A=0AI think every= one who read this thread was immediately aware that the "high quality a= pplications" argument is "flawed" (i've actually another term in mind)=0A= =0AQualification/certification requires a trustworthy instance, not som= e formalized README.=0AAnd the presence of an AppData description does = neither indicate that the app is actually maintained (not now and certa= inly not in the long run, not even if you'd pervert the idea of a stand= ard and alter it once a month), nor does the absence indicate that the = app is of low quality (by measure of update frequency, some essential C= LI tools would have to be considered "utter crap", because they work th= e way they are since a decade - and they do not even provide screenshot= s!!!)=0A=0AThe one and only point of forcing the apps to support AppDat= a in order to be available is to enforce the AppData "standard".=0AIf g= oogle videosearch would only find youtube videos, there'd be not the sl= ightest doubt about that being a move in order to enforce (or at least = "encourage") distribution via youtube and certainly not to assure "high= quality videos" - of cats...=0A=0A=0AThe important questions to ask an= d answer (well, "is it usable")=0A-------------------------------------= ---------------------------=0A* does it presently qualify as "standard"= at all? (not as long as it states particular tools - like gnome i18n, = as claimed by David)=0A* what are the benefits of this particular stand= ard over pot. competitors?=0A* what are the deficits of this particular= standard?=0A* who is in control of the standard?=0A* what are the bene= fits in controlling the standard?=0A* What are the goals? Is it actuall= y supposed to become a gatekeeper ("high quality applications" at best,= "you use what i tell you"/"walled garden" at worst) tool?=0A* in case,= by what technique (expert review, voting, etc.), ie. who becomes the g= atekeeper?=0A=0ANo serious answer to the above could include buzz like = "high quality" or "awesome".=0A=0ACheers,=0AThomas