@josh.zamor this is the post @jennifer.e.shivers was talking about around adding reference tech tools that can could then be tested when that process becomes available. @carl suggested a light validity check of tools. Lets continue the conversation here instead of on the wiki.
@josh.zamor I’m thinking that tools get raised in the appropriate sub-communities and the community gives a yay or nay. basically the community members of the sub community are probably closest to knowing what it means to be X tool/component. When that is done just to inform Architecture community of selection and give the ok. Architecture community is to validate the sub-community finding as a bit of a governance approach to keep a coordination across the space but not authoritarian dictatorship like control
Thanks @carl. It’s a bit of the tail wagging the dog as I’ve been central to both definition and tool creation, however the topic could certainly be raised with those that do join.
Hi @josh.zamor I’ve been rethinking my view on this and I feel that i’ve introduced more “admin” than necessary – I’d suggest to go ahead and list the tools as we are actually curating a tool list and until we have a way of empirically testing then there is no need for an overly designed administrative check.