Official RIIT (Rewrite it in Tauri) Standpoint?

I think the recent tweets to rewrite-it-in-tauri (like the one about Slack) has been inspiring community members to push for it in other projects. 😁 I think it's great to offer ideas and get the word out there, but I worry a little that some of these unofficial cases will be discounted because Tauri is in beta and then may not be considered again once things are stable.

I'm guessing that some of the people proposing these might be super excited, but not super knowledgeable on Tauri. Or they may just let their excitement come off too strongly - I've been there! Their arguments haven't been very robust or detailed, from what I've seen. It's something to the effect of "Why? Because Tauri is faster and smaller than Electron!" 😅

If anyone else also thinks this could have some negative effect, my proposal would be to have a "cease fire" unless from official sources, obviously not worded that way because we aren't at war. 🤪 We could have an official page like
"Considering Tauri for your project?" with a section targeting these excited devs pushing it on their favorite tools like:

If you're excited to see this adopted by your favorite tools, we recommend the following to have the strongest and most respectful approach:

• Don't just say, "because it's better than Electron." 😅
• Be respectful of the decisions the maintainers have already made.
• A project's success does not come from following shiny toys. Shape your proposal in a way that shows your excitement, but also is backed by concrete evidence.
• Do your homework. Find out what tools they are using and real pain points they are having. Focus on those.

and so on..

If we do want mitigation, but feel like this is too forward, an alternate solution could be to keep an eye out for these instances and try to advise. This is reactive and so we may miss some or be too late, but 🤷🏼..

No file, test, or entry point is named. Review the proposed guidance and the documentation contribution process before deciding whether an official standpoint is wanted. Done would mean an agreed scope and published guidance, but the issue does not define the page location or acceptance criteria.