##### Refer to the [Software peer-review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_peer_review) (URL is placeholder until committee proposal) document when applicable.
# Scope
-**Assessment of technical documentation of open source hardware.** _Just_ the documentation (at the beginning). Including assessment/certification of the actual technology would result in a much bigger need regarding reviewing and administrative resources. (Also not sure what a certificate for a technological review would mean in terms of liability etc.)
- more specifically: assess completeness, quality and accessibility of technical documentation after clear, technology-specific requirements
- technical documentation shall:
- provide sufficient information so that specialists in the fields of corresponding technologies would require to exercise the four rights of open source (hardware) (→ study, modify, make/use, distribute/sell)
- be published under a free/open license
- accessible via the internet
- bear reference of a defined set of metadata (name or working title, author(s), license, functional description, release number etc.)
# Process
##### Note: mention of a "certification body" in this initial proposal 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
