(but yet not limited to that; software may be included, too)
##### Refer to the [Review of open source software](url) document when applicable.
# Scope
...
...
@@ -14,9 +14,10 @@ Review of open source hardware
- bear reference of a defined set of metadata (name or working title, author(s), license, functional description, release number etc.)
# Process
(Note: in this initial proposal, the mention of a "certification body" is suggested. That is an option that may or may not be included in the final proposal)
1. project submits a release of its technical documentation to a certification body / conformity assessment body
2. body moderates anonymous peer-reviewing process
3. when all comments/issues are clarified, the body issues a certificate / an attestation to the applicant
4. certificate / attestation can be challenged (e.g. when the documentation is not accessible anymore or license terms changed)
5. all relevant information (documentation releases, peer-reviews, certificates/attestations,…) are published under a free/open license by this body → hence "hard forks" of the whole body are technically possible
\ No newline at end of file
5. all relevant information (documentation releases, peer-reviews, certificates/attestations,…) are published under a free/open license by this body → hence "hard forks" of the whole body are technically possible
