[theme-reviewers] Discussion on suspension of old themes in the extend/themes

[Chip Bennett]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Two points from above (below?) that I will add my comments to:
>
> 1) esmi brings up a valid point I have been putting forward in discussions:
> make sure to let the theme authors know! It is not relevant if the theme
> author is active in as much as ALL theme authors need to be made aware of
> this change as IMHO it is a significant one; and, although WordPress rarely
> sends out a mass email (and I am not really a fan of them) I still strongly
> advocate this as one of the methods to be used when advising the authors
> currently with themes in the repository.
>

I would tend to agree. Mass email should certainly be used judiciously;
however, I think this instance qualifies as judicious use. We're proposing a
pretty significant change, and need to ensure that all repository-hosted
Theme developers are made aware of that change.

We also need to give ample advanced notice of the change. I'm not sure that
three months isn't too long (as in, if we send out the notice by the end of
August, we indicate that the suspensions will begin December 1st, 2010 for
Themes not updated since the release date of WordPress 2.8 - or something
along those lines).

>
> 2) A more prominent date stamp for criteria is a very good idea, currently
> you can log in and view the history of a codex page to see its changelog and
> therefore the date the change was made; BUT, I would suggest an
> implementation date versus a timestamp in regards to when specific criteria
> must be adhered to as this is much easier to understand than writing
> 30/60/90 days from ... or however the time allowance will be set.
>
> Yes, I should have specified more clearly: by "timestamp" I really meant
"implementation date". That was poorly worded. :)

Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100817/4d0c964d/attachment-0001.htm>