On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 03:08 AM, Gene wrote:
I am saying that a voice listed on that page would bee seen by a lot of users as having an implied endorsement in terms of safety. A lot of users wouldn't be familiar with the discussion on list.-
That's different, and a legitimate concern.
I have advocated, for some time, with regard to add-ons (and it would apply here) that there should be a centralized place where all would be stored, but that there would be a vetted/safety and effectiveness tested and an "at your own risk" section.
There are scads of add-ons that have been created, and been being used safely for a long time, that their respective owners do not wish to submit for official vetting. The same is obviously true for voices.
I bet that it could be counted on less than one hand the times when anything that has originated from "the community" whether vetted or not had malign intent or effect. But I agree that one should know when and whether something has been vetted (which is not exactly the same as endorsed, but close) and not. But it should be up to the end user to decide whether what the thing offers is important enough, to them, to try it if it is in the "at your own risk" section.
Centralized repositories for these sorts of things are advantageous for all involved and should be set up (period) but must also let the potential user know whether something has been vetted or not. Unvetted seldom means "bad" or "malign."
Brian - Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit, Version 20H2, Build 19042
Any idiot can face a crisis. It's the day-to-day living that wears you out.
~ Anton Chekhov