First: eliminate the use of the term "reject". It is inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory. We're not "rejecting" anything. We're simply pointing out things that need to be fixed before *approving* something. We've been over this before.<div>
<br></div><div>Secondly, I second what Phil has said.</div><div><br></div><div>We've been told to self-direct the Theme Review process, and we have done so. At this point, I *expect* to be supported by those who have told us to self-direct.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We have defined the guidelines; they are good guidelines. You and others appear to have wholesale disagreement with the guidelines (or, at least parts - such as PHP notices and deprecated functions), and at this point, I couldn't care less. Such disagreement is noise and a distraction.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We are requiring no PHP notices, and no deprecated functions. Period. Personally, I'm done debating this point.</div><div><br></div><div>Nacin, you should be supporting the Theme Reviewer in this instance, not cutting out his legs from underneath him. It is this very sort of behavior that leads to an utter lack of motivation to continue performing Theme reviews.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chip<br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Andrew Nacin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wp@andrewnacin.com">wp@andrewnacin.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philip@frumph.net" target="_blank">philip@frumph.net</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Furthermore let's talk about ionfish how he has functions calling hooks instead of just embedding the hook in the location used .. erm.. why? .. yeah I would call that unneeded unnecessary coding. </blockquote><div>
<br></div></div><div>We're rejecting quality, extremely well coded themes on narrow technical grounds. It's not even a new theme. It's a minor update to a long-time existing one that is terrifically coded and wildly popular; it's a step in the right direction. This kind of rejection goes against the primary goals of the theme reviews. I see no reason why this theme update should not be approved. Not on the basis of it being rejected initially, not on a cursory review of the codebase, and not on this email, either.</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>