No subject
Tue Apr 20 23:23:57 UTC 2010
That comment by ionfish was made six weeks ago as well, and also I admit to
only reading it this morning, but that is another issue that has recently
been sorted out by comment notifications now going out when made on any
ticket. Be that as it may, the author himself did not appear to have
concerns regarding those points only to indicate they really are not
apparently all that interested in WP development these days as they are
"just maintaining the theme since so many people use it".
Frumph just recently added more cursory points to that particular ticket
indicating there are (and often is the case) additional items to be
addressed by the theme author. The Theme Reviewers are not Theme testers ye=
t
we are treated as such by the community. We do not go through themes with a
"fine-tooth comb" looking for issues if enough apparent issues present
themselves with a cursory review. It is entirely and wholly the
responsibility of the theme authors and developers to insure their themes
meet or exceed the guidelines and standards as they are written on the Them=
e
Review page and related pages found in the WordPress codex.
As Chip Bennett wrote: '... the term "reject". It is inaccurate and
needlessly inflammatory. We are not "rejecting" anything. We're simply
pointing out things that need to be fixed before "approving" something." ..=
.
and this is exactly the case. We have several resolutions that can be used
and perhaps their wording carries an unwanted connotative meaning but
essentially the "not-accepted" resolution that everyone appears to be suck
on simply means the theme needs some sort of corrective measures to be take=
n
to meet the Theme Review criteria and be approved for the Theme repository.
We can ignore the criteria, and some reviewers have and do, this is not an
acceptable method of continuing with the Theme Review process. If this
haphazard, willy-nilly, waffles served with fresh butter and warm syrup
approach becomes the expected method to be followed then the demotivating o=
f
the Theme Review team's most prolific reviewer as well as the one with the
most keen eye for potential and existing issues will be only a beginning of
the exodus of volunteers for this task.
This ticket (noted above) and review, which I was the Theme Reviewer
involved, and this thread only serves as yet another example of the lack of
support the Theme Review Team is receiving from Automattic/WPROG and the
community (please note it is not directed at the Tarski theme itself, it
just happened to be a lynch-pin for the matter).
The Theme Review Team is expected to be self-directing and thus
self-motivating, but the continued non-supportive influences of those
perceived to speak with an official capacity makes for a very arduous and
somewhat non-rewarding experience for all involved ... the Theme authors an=
d
developers, the Theme Review Team, and the community.
Cais
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Secondly, I second what Phil has said.
>
> 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 t=
o
> self-direct.
>
> 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.
>
> We are requiring no PHP notices, and no deprecated functions. Period.
> Personally, I'm done debating this point.
>
> 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 behavio=
r
> that leads to an utter lack of motivation to continue performing Theme
> reviews.
>
> Chip
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Andrew Nacin <wp at andrewnacin.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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 goa=
ls
>> of the theme reviews. I see no reason why this theme update should not b=
e
>> approved. Not on the basis of it being rejected initially, not on a curs=
ory
>> review of the codebase, and not on this email, either.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
--000325559d1663a07b049100fd60
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First off (@Demetris), this thread is about a theme that was reviewed and r=
esolved as "not-accepted" six weeks ago ... the author himself di=
d not even address the points you are just now bringing forward. All they h=
ad to say was:<br>
<br>> Why? It's data, not code. Have WP hooks improved to the point =
where sensible actions can be performed when a theme is installed or remove=
d? If so, then I'm happy to add in some cleanup routines=97I don't =
really do much WP development these days, I'm just maintaining the them=
e since so many people use it.<br>
> <br>> The atom file is a cached version of <a href=3D"http://tarski=
theme.com/version.atom">http://tarskitheme.com/version.atom</a>, so that th=
e admin panel isn't slowed down by phoning home on every request. It=
9;s documented here: <a href=3D"http://tarskitheme.com/help/updates/">http:=
//tarskitheme.com/help/updates/</a>.<br>
<br>From the Trac ticket: <a href=3D"http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticke=
t/631">http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/631</a><br><br>That comment =
by ionfish was made six weeks ago as well, and also I admit to only reading=
it this morning, but that is another issue that has recently been sorted o=
ut by comment notifications now going out when made on any ticket. Be that =
as it may, the author himself did not appear to have concerns regarding tho=
se points only to indicate they really are not apparently all that interest=
ed in WP development these days as they are "just maintaining the them=
e since so many people use it".<br>
<br>Frumph just recently added more cursory points to that particular ticke=
t indicating there are (and often is the case) additional items to be addre=
ssed by the theme author. The Theme Reviewers are not Theme testers yet we =
are treated as such by the community. We do not go through themes with a &q=
uot;fine-tooth comb" looking for issues if enough apparent issues pres=
ent themselves with a cursory review. It is entirely and wholly the respons=
ibility of the theme authors and developers to insure their themes meet or =
exceed the guidelines and standards as they are written on the Theme Review=
page and related pages found in the WordPress codex.<br>
<br>As Chip Bennett wrote: '... the term "reject". It is inac=
curate and needlessly inflammatory. We are not "rejecting" anythi=
ng. We're simply pointing out things that need to be fixed before "=
;approving" something." ... and this is exactly the case. We have=
several resolutions that can be used and perhaps their wording carries an =
unwanted connotative meaning but essentially the "not-accepted" r=
esolution that everyone appears to be suck on simply means the theme needs =
some sort of corrective measures to be taken to meet the Theme Review crite=
ria and be approved for the Theme repository.<br>
<br>We can ignore the criteria, and some reviewers have and do, this is not=
an acceptable method of continuing with the Theme Review process. If this =
haphazard, willy-nilly, waffles served with fresh butter and warm syrup app=
roach becomes the expected method to be followed then the demotivating of t=
he Theme Review team's most prolific reviewer as well as the one with t=
he most keen eye for potential and existing issues will be only a beginning=
of the exodus of volunteers for this task.<br>
<br>This ticket (noted above) and review, which I was the Theme Reviewer in=
volved, and this thread only serves as yet another example of the lack of s=
upport the Theme Review Team is receiving from Automattic/WPROG and the com=
munity (please note it is not directed at the Tarski theme itself, it just =
happened to be a lynch-pin for the matter).<br>
<br>The Theme Review Team is expected to be self-directing and thus self-mo=
tivating, but the continued non-supportive influences of those perceived to=
speak with an official capacity makes for a very arduous and somewhat non-=
rewarding experience for all involved ... the Theme authors and developers,=
the Theme Review Team, and the community.<br>
<br><br>Cais<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, =
Sep 24, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Chip Bennett <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail=
to:chip at chipbennett.net">chip at chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-le=
ft: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
First: eliminate the use of the term "reject". It is inaccurate a=
nd needlessly inflammatory. We're not "rejecting" anything. W=
e'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 hav=
e 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 guideline=
s. You and others appear to have wholesale disagreement with the guidelines=
(or, at least parts - such as PHP notices and deprecated functions), and a=
t this point, I couldn't care less. Such disagreement is noise and a di=
straction.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We are requiring no PHP notices, and no deprecated func=
tions. Period. Personally, I'm done debating this point.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Nacin, you should be supporting the Theme Reviewer in this insta=
nce, 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 T=
heme reviews.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chip<br><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div><=
/div><div class=3D"h5">On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Andrew Nacin <span =
dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:wp at andrewnacin.com" target=3D"_blank">wp@=
andrewnacin.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt =
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div>=
<div></div><div class=3D"h5">
<div>On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <span dir=3D=
"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:philip at frumph.net" target=3D"_blank">philip at fru=
mph.net</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); 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? =A0.=
. yeah I would call that unneeded unnecessary coding.=A0</blockquote><div>
<br></div></div><div>We're rejecting quality, extremely well coded them=
es on narrow technical grounds. It's not even a new theme. It's a m=
inor update to a long-time existing one that is terrifically coded and wild=
ly popular; it's a step in the right direction.=A0This kind of rejectio=
n goes against the primary goals of the theme reviews.=A0I see no reason wh=
y this theme update should not be approved. Not on the basis of it being re=
jected initially, not on a cursory review of the codebase, and not on this =
email, either.</div>
</div>
<br></div></div><div class=3D"im">_________________________________________=
______<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org" target=3D"_blank">th=
eme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers<=
/a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers at list=
s.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers<=
/a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
--000325559d1663a07b049100fd60--
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list