[theme-reviewers] New Ticket Resolution

[Edward Caissie]

"approved with comments" and related ideas were the impetus to the creation
of "needs-additional-review" and IIRC "suggest-approval" resolutions ... if
we are going to add more resolutions we need to understand what the existing
ones are to be used for.

So as you think I have a problem or issue with this approach, I would rather
write I have concerns in continually going forward without looking at where
we came from.

We should be solidifying our basics before building on them. As I mentioned
before, the current resolutions need to be better defined so reviewers and
end-users alike understand what they are for. If that means we need to add
more afterward I am fine with that, too, but currently we have resolutions
that were meant to cover your "original subject" to my understanding.

If our current resolutions are not sufficient, obviously we can add more,
but we should define the existing ones first is essentially what I am
putting forward.


Cais.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> So, we circle back to the original subject: the use of "approved with
> comments".
>
> I'm trying to understand your disagreement with this method. To me, it is a
> reasonable compromise between approving generally good Themes, while also
> moving Theme Developers toward increased conformance to the Guidelines.
>
> So, can you help me understand your problems/issues with this approach? Is
> it the approach itself, or is it the idea of formalizing it?
>
> Chip
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK, either we enforce them, or we don't.
>>
>>
>> If that is our method then there are no "minor" issues ... and quite
>> simply that is the crux of the matter.
>>
>> The guideline needs to be strongly adhered to with a "black or white"
>> premise but that does not preclude reasonable exceptions and as you are want
>> to describe "selective enforcement", or in my mind reasonable
>> interpretations of the Theme Review page(s) to meet the requirements as they
>> are expected to be met.
>>
>> Would I ignore the current license requirement as you are quoting, in a
>> word: Yes. Would I ignore the complete lack of any sort of GPL-compliance
>> declaration, again in a word: No. If the author has chosen another method to
>> declare the theme GPL compliant that resembles the quote above, then I would
>> likely accept it and most likely suggest they use what the Theme Review
>> page(s) state should be used (at this time). We have already decided that
>> will be changing to something much more "blank and white" in the (near)
>> future.
>>
>> Rather than continually re-hashing this particular point we should be
>> addressing the future requirements of the GPL compatible license
>> declaration(s) and putting that forward.
>>
>> Also to the CSS requirements ... once "FixPress" is not required to have a
>> standard default WordPress installation using the most current Theme Unit
>> Test data pass the validation test(s) I will be happy to re-consider setting
>> a resolution  of "not-approved" based on minor CSS issues, until then I will
>> remain using, as you like to refer to it, "selective enforcement".
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101014/dae338de/attachment.htm>