hi @Quser59, if you were to summarize the issues/problems you see with the current program, what would they be? that would help me understand what you are trying to solve with your proposed draft.
the drafted documents seem to be trying to create “structure” for the program that maybe you see as lacking as someone who is not a device manufacturer? but i’m just guessing since feedback from manufacturers/vendors regarding the certification program are obviously most relevant for us and we haven’t received feedback from them that this was an obstacle for them. (again i shared at the beginning of this thread what is the main obstacle for additional hardware certifications at this time.)
re: better communicating to users what devices Qubes works well with, i don’t know if you saw the latest version of the Community-recommended computers list which we have also now incorporated into the main website.
trying to understand the issues you see with the current process, I re-read your first post. this seems to be your initial assumption:
which is not fully accurate. from the Certified harware page:
The Qubes OS Project aims to partner with a select few computer vendors to ensure that Qubes users have reliable hardware purchasing options. We aim for these vendors to be as diverse as possible in terms of geography, cost, and availability.
but also:
We hope these hardware requirements will encourage the development of more secure and trustworthy devices.
so in addition to trying to provide users with ease-of-use of pre-installed devices, part of the point of certification is to encourage more secure hardware development.
to help users navigate the world of non-pre-installed devices, we now have the Community-recommended computers list.