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

[Chip Bennett]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Demetris Kikizas <kikizas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Unless you first arrived to earth this morning, guidelines that
> exclude Tarski on multiple grounds are not good guidelines.


>

> You people are clueless.  I hope someone gives you all the boot and
> shuts this absurd thing down before it is too late.
>


First: be respectful, or be gone. We have more important things to do than
deal with disrespectful people.

Second: if you want to criticize the Theme Review process or guidelines, put
up or shut up. Review some Themes first, and *then* criticize.

Third: the Guidelines ship has already sailed. We absolutely *must* have a
way for several people to perform equal, fair, and objective reviews of
hundreds of Themes submitted or updated each month. The Guidelines provide
that objective standard by which to review Themes.

If you have *specific* complaints about a *specific* guideline, then present
those *specific* complaints along with compelling arguments for why the
*specific* guideline should be changed. As with our lack of time to deal
with disrespectful people, we likewise lack time to deal with generalized,
absurd denouncements of the Guidelines as a whole.

Fourth: the review observations regarding the Tarski Theme are all valid,
and are evidence that the developer has not worked to keep the Theme's code
current through each release of WordPress. Perhaps your frustration would be
better directed at the developer, who has indicated that his time is
currently better spent on other projects rather than on keeping his
WordPress Theme current - and rather than childishly berating the Theme
Review team, perhaps your time would be better spent updating that Theme
yourself.


> Please, spare me the “inflammatory” speech, and stop playing with words.
>  This here is a serious matter.


It *is* inflammatory, because 1) nothing has been "rejected", and 2) the use
of the term "rejected" in this case is intended to be an appeal to emotion.

If this is such a serious matter, why has the Theme developer not addressed
it in the six weeks since the ticket was closed?


> And the simple fact of it all is that the submission was turned down,
>

And the simple fact of it all is that the Theme had significant issues, that
precluded the Theme being accepted as-is.


> Ben did not resubmit (he obviously has better things to do in his life
> than indulging the absurd[1] requirements of this team), he then went
> on to release the new version on the Tarski homepage, and WordPress
> Extend is still in version 2.6 from March 2010.Please, spare me the
> “inflammatory” speech, and stop playing with
> words.
>

What he does on his own site is of no concern to me. We can't do anything
about the quality of the code of Themes already included in the repository,
but that doesn't mean we can't (or shouldn't) raise the quality standard for
new and revised Themes.

>
> If you don’t understand what all this means, let me make it clear for you:
>
> This team here is driving people away.  In this case, it is driving
> away one of the jewels of the WordPress coding community.
>

Right. *We* are the ones that caused him to stop supporting his Theme, and
to stop keeping it current with changes to WordPress core. Thank you for
elucidating us on this point.

>
> [1] Here is a striking example of an absurd requirement:  That we must
> use body_class() and post_class() in our themes.  Could this demand be
> any more absurd?  It could not?  Wrong!  Just direct it to the author
> of Tarski, who wrote himself the core WordPress functions based on
> existing implementations in Sandbox and in his own Tarski. :-o


Well, if he wrote the core functions himself, then they should certainly be
up to his own standard, and should be suitable for inclusion in his own
Theme.

Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100924/cef2ca15/attachment-0001.htm>