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

[Edward Caissie]

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.

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.


Cais.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, esmi at quirm dot net <esmi at quirm.net>wrote:
>
>> on 16/08/2010 19:58 Chip Bennett said the following:
>>
>>  Yes, and no.
>>>
>>> The way I see it: all Themes must meet standards that are current *at the
>>> time the Theme is submitted*.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> In that case, can I ask that the date stamp of the Theme Unit Test Data
>> file and the date of the last change to the Theme Review Guidelines be added
>> to the Theme Upload page?
>>
>> I only found out pretty recently that I was using an outdated test data
>> set which ended up causing some confusion.
>>
>
> The Theme Unit Test data shouldn't change all that often - only when
> WordPress adds new front-end content that would then need to be
> incorporated. (The primary reason for revising the Theme Unit Test Data this
> time was just to clean it up, eliminate redundant/unnecessary tests, and to
> make the content flow more consistently with the Theme Development Checklist
> - basically, to make the data easier to use when developing and/or reviewing
> a Theme.)
>
> Even so, that's a fair critique. I'll add that to my to-do list for
> updating the Codex.
>
> I'll also make sure that WordPress version-specific criteria have
> timestamps in the Review Criteria in the Codex, to ensure that Theme
> developers are aware of when, exactly, new criteria will take effect.
>
>
>>
>> I'd also suggest that any suspension criteria be added to the page so that
>> future submitters are, in effect, agreeing to suspension/removal without
>> notice. Might cut your workload down a bit later on and circumvent the "but
>> no one told me..." complaints.
>>
>> esmi <http://blackwidows.co.uk>
>
>
> Another good idea. I've not looked at the Theme submission page recently,
> though I know others have updated it.
>
> I think that, whatever the team comes up with, regarding suspension of
> outdated Themes, that information should definitely be as prominent as
> possible. Also, I don't think any of us would advocate "suspension without
> notice" except for something egregious (blatant SEO/spam abuse, or
> exploiting security vulnerabilities, etc.). I'm confident that, if any
> policy is implemented, that Theme developers will be given every opportunity
> to know the policy, how it impacts their Themes, and when it would apply.
>
> (The idea is to encourage Theme developers to keep their Themes current -
> not necessarily to cull the repository. 500 current Themes and 500 outdated
> Themes is bad. 500 current Themes and 500 suspended outdated Themes is
> better. 1,000 current Themes is best!)
>
> Chip
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100817/50766081/attachment.htm>