[theme-reviewers] What is wrong with you people? You rejectedTarski?

[Chip Bennett]

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 to
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 behavior
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 goals
> of the theme reviews. I see no reason why this theme update should not be
> approved. Not on the basis of it being rejected initially, not on a cursory
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100924/cafc9edd/attachment.htm>