Re: The endless influx of low-quality, low-realism, quantity-over-quality aircraft into FGAddon

Some brief thoughts:

1) There are two aspects of aircraft quality: how popular is it, and
	how accurate is its simulation?

2) To measure popularity, we could measure number of downloads, number
	of loads, number of flight hours (!), or a combination of all.
	Similar to Debian's "popcon", this should be opt-in.

3) To rate simulation accuracy, I would want the input from two sets
	of people: those who have flown the aircraft in real life
	and can compare the simulation; and those who have studied
	the specs and can give an educated opinion on how close
	the aircraft programming comes to reality.

4) To measure simulation accuracy, I envision a process similar to
	Linux kernel signoffs for commits.  Each "expert" would sign
	their names to a particular aircraft and version, with a brief
	summary of his claims.  This would be visible for end users
	to read and evaluate.

5) I like the idea of multiple hangars.  But Official Flightgear should
	have a hangar of its own, for brand alone.

- Chris