[theme-reviewers] My First Suggest-Approval *sniff*

Edward Caissie edward.caissie at gmail.com
Mon Sep 13 00:17:36 UTC 2010

The general concepts and ideas being put forward with the last several
replies to this thread have gone around many times before and yet here we do
it again.

How many times does the Theme Review team need to ask, and in how many ways
does it have to be worded: input from Automattic/WPORG is required.

It is required for the reason: the Theme Reviewers make an interpretation of
what is required, recommended, or optional only to be chastised most every
time for their interpretation and subsequent actions. How is the core team
putting forward their valued "education and community involvement" standards
in this manner? It is, at best, counter-productive.

The "abide by the list mentality" as its being referred to is simply all we
have to work with under the current review process conditions. Is it the
only viable method, most likely not, but it is the only available method at
this time. The options are getting rather simple: continue as is, and
improve the process as we go; stop everything and all approvals until a
thoroughly vetted and approved Theme Review process can be developed and put
in place; or, let the core devs do all of the theme reviews as they would be
the best judges of what is acceptable and what is not.

If you consider those three points as those of a triangle then somewhere in
the middle is most likely the best place to find a solution; but, it is
equally likely not to be arrived at without mutually cooperative
communication and actions being taken together by all parties involved: the
community (Theme Review team, Developers/Authors, etc.) and Automattic/WPORG
(core/dev team members).

So once again I will ask of the teams, as has already been asked even in
this thread: what is expected and under what criteria are the Theme
Reviewers to be going forward with?


On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Chris <chris at thematic4you.com> wrote:
>>  We allow themes to stay for a certain time in the repository without any
>> change before we put these themes into a ‘sleep’ mode, but we require a new
>> or updated theme to use the latest and greatest functions. This isn’t
>> consistent.
> Actually, no Theme currently in the repository is touched at all. I think
> it's wrong, and inconsistent with the stated objectives of the repository
> and of the Theme Review process/team. I proposed a process to suspend
> obsolete Themes in the repository, but was over-ruled. So, I've dropped the
> idea for the time being.
> You're right; it makes no sense to leave Themes in the repository that have
> not been updated for over two years, yet make currently supported Themes to
> meet a considerably higher quality standard. But, we (the Review Team) can't
> control either the handling of Themes in the repository, or the decision
> regarding such handling. So we focus instead on that which we can control:
> the quality standard for Themes being submitted for inclusion.
>> I don’t know how many themes don’t use sanitizing functions at all. Why
>> shouldn’t we allow a grace period for switching from clean_url() to
>> esc_url()? We could use this grace period to educate the developers with
>> some help from the core team members.
> That's the idea, actually: to allow for a grace period, and to help provide
> the necessary educational tools. That's why the Guidelines are so well
> cross-referenced. That's why we have a section for Guideline revisions that
> will coincide with the release of WP 3.1. That's why Phil is working on a
> "knowledge base" Codex reference, to help explain best practices, and how to
> implement the guidelines.
> But it is still up the the Theme developers to make use of those resources.
> And, as I've said previously: it is incumbent upon Theme developers to keep
> themselves abreast with WordPress core changes and how those changes impact
> their Themes.
> 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/20100912/3508c461/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list