(Triggered by 17259, but sure affects other boards too).
Do we have a policy on the documentation requirements for (new; old to be weeded out on the long run) boards? If not, here’s a strawman policy I’d suggest:
Descriptions of boards need to contain:
Manufacturer by name and link
Alternatively, for boards distributed in electronic form to be etched and assembled by users, provider of the source.
Product name (and, if available, number) assigned by the manufacturer
If the manufacturer is known to sneakily update products and still keep the same PR name, a stable product identifier is required.
Information about where the board can be obtained from
Short description of the board (shape, connectors, case, noteworthy peripherals like radios or displays)
Link to English vendor documentation that contains the necessary information to review the board source code.
If no English vendor documentation is available, third party translations need to be linked, which are complete enough for a review.
If no vendor documentation is available (e.g. because it is a reverse engineered board), reverse engineering documentation can fill in for vendor documentation; this needs to be clearly documented, along with noteworthy shortcomings of the reverse engineering efforts.
Link to schematics, if available
Information about ways of programming (whether there is a bootloader, if yes which and how it is used, whether there is an on-board programmer or a programming header)
The contentious points are probably “English documentation” and “where to get it from”.
As for documentation, we can’t maintain something we can’t understand, and can’t understand something that is not either documented or well reverse engineered.
As for vendors, this runs the risk of becoming advertisement for particular vendors, but I’d rather have a few RS / Farnell / Mouser / Reichelt deep-links in there and know to be careful when I don’t see them, rather than look into a board only to notice later that it’s only available on Amazon or Aliexpress.