Document criteria for listing ecosystem projects

[awtj8o81ryywg793]

It appears there is a mismatch between advertising that we will list all ecosystem projects, at least for clients (see the wording of the "All known clients" section of matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/), and our apparent hesitation to list certain projects because they are forks without significant changes (see #3430). I think we should discuss the criteria for listing new projects of all types, not just clients, on the website and then document those criteria (including changing the wording of the "All known clients" section of matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ if need be).

[thibaultamartin]

After discussing in the office of the WG, we have decided the following

• We want to avoid littering the website with low-effort reskins of other projects
• If we think a project is a low-effort reskin, then it becomes up to the maintainer to demonstrate that they have also brought significant changes
• The "we think a project is a low-effort reskin" bit is intentionally left subjective. It would be very difficult to codify objectively, and maintainers can still appeal and demonstrate the value of their fork

[awtj8o81ryywg793]

Quoted from a previous comment:

After discussing in the office of the WG, we have decided the following

* We want to avoid littering the website with low-effort reskins of other projects

* If we think a project is a low-effort reskin, then it becomes up to the maintainer to demonstrate that they have also brought significant changes

* The "we think a project is a low-effort reskin" bit is intentionally left subjective. It would be very difficult to codify objectively, and maintainers can still appeal and demonstrate the value of their fork

Thanks for posting the decision outcome! It looks like we just need to document it in CONTENT.md.