[theme-reviewers] New Ticket Resolution

[Chip Bennett]

Okay, then, here's what I propose:

1) Eliminate "needs-additional-review"
2) Eliminate "suggest-approval"

We have no need for either one:

   - "approved" - Theme passes review, and ticket is closed
   - "not-approved" - Theme does not pass review, and ticket is closed
   - "closed-newer-version-uploaded" - ticket is closed, and a newer version
   of the Theme is reviewed

That covers all of our bases right now.

Chip

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Edward Caissie
<edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> "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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101014/62dd08cc/attachment.htm>