[theme-reviewers] Question about ob_start and ob_get_clean (Vicky Arulsingam)

Sun Jul 3 23:00:05 UTC 2011

In summary...

   1. WordPress users should not have the freedom to write bad code.
   2. WordPress theme developers must not offer users the freedom to write
   bad code.
   3. A roomful of WordPress contributors, after 5 days of deliberation,
   were unable to produce a *single* *valid* *reason* for rejecting themes
   that use output buffering.
   4. In the face of criticism and dissenting viewpoints, the WPTRT reacts
   emotionally and will blindly defend its position using such tactics as "the
   factless filibuster" and "unplugging the dissenter's microphone."
   5. Put WordPress developers' egos first; WordPress users second.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> Nacin is not a member of the WPTRT. He is a core contributor, if not
> currently the *lead* core contributor. His merit is based on more
> contributions to WordPress in one year than either you or I will make in our
> lifetimes. With respect to WordPress core code, *Nacin's word is the
> gold-standard*. Given that he contributes to these discussions voluntarily
> and at our request, I personally don't take kindly to what you have written.
>
> Given that 1) your comments continue to devolve into streams of *ad
> hominem*, and 2) two other WPTRT admins have already weighed in,
> concurring on the issue, I'm going to take off my *personal opinion* hat,
> and put on my *WPTRT admin* hat. Consider the following statement to be
> the *current, official WPTRT policy*:
>
> *What you are proposing will not be permitted for repository-hosted
> Themes. There may be other, valid uses of ob_cache, which would be
> considered on a case-by-case basis; but the use you're proposing will not be
> accepted.*
>
> Given that this thread demonstrates absolutely no potential for any
> further, constructive purpose, I am requesting that it not be continued.
>
> Chip
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Darren Slatten <darrenslatten at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> *People don't respect the opinions of leaders because of their
>>> responsibilities. In a meritocracy, they earn respect and responsibility
>>> based on their opinions.
>>> *
>>
>>
>> This is the second time I've heard "meritocracy" being referenced, so I'd
>> like to address it directly. If you want recognition for the things you've
>> contributed in the past, then why are we using a mailing list? I assumed it
>> was a deliberate choice, intended to keep the focus on the facts. If it was
>> an arbitrary decision, then let's move to a platform that supports a
>> meritocracy--something like a phpBB forum, where everyone can see (1) when
>> you joined, (2) how many responses you've contributed, etc. Right now, the
>> only information I can base your "merit" on is limited to your 2 responses
>> in this thread. Unfortunately, neither of your responses included any usable
>> information, and both contain flawed reasoning. Additionally, your responses
>> are self-centered, which leads me to believe that your primary concern is
>> your own ego. For example, out of everything I've said over the past few
>> days, the part you directly responded to contains your name. Think about it.
>>
>> BTW...this statement:
>>
>> *In a meritocracy, they earn respect and responsibility based on their
>>> opinions.*
>>>
>>
>> ...is simply wrong. Responsibilities are distributed according to each
>> individual's *actions* and the results of those actions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *You're misusing appeal to authority. The fallacy is that because I have
>>> authority, I must be right. We never presented you with that premise,
>>> however, and provided many others. You can't spout "appeal to authority"
>>> whenever you disagree with the outlined reasons. Period.
>>> *
>>
>>
>> Not only is most of this blatantly false, but it barely passes as a
>> cohesive thought. Also, a premise is something that's assumed to be true.
>> The problem here is that you and several others keep trying to pass off your
>> opinions as true statements. Examples of statements that are not premises
>> include things like "a theme should be a theme" and "output buffering is
>> never appropriate for use in themes." The first example lacks a clear
>> definition and neither example has been established as a fundamental truth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *I think we're done here. You're welcome to post your theme-plugin hybrid
>>> output-buffering frankenstein thing on your own site.
>>> *
>>
>>
>> ...and I shall call it...THUGGINSTEIN!  [cue thunder/lightning/ominous
>> music]
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if you realize this, but so far no one has been able to
>> provide a reason for rejecting my code example. There's been plenty of
>> philosophical banter, chest thumping, name dropping, and all-around circle
>> jerking, but surely that's not sufficient to construct absolute policies out
>> of--especially ones that would require me to make my theme *less useful*to end users. My ultimate goal is to develop a theme that offers the
>> greatest value to my users. I'm being forced to take a deliberate step in
>> the opposite direction of that goal, and I don't think it's at all
>> unreasonable for me to expect an objective reason for doing so.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Andrew Nacin <wp at andrewnacin.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Darren Slatten <darrenslatten at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your argument is a textbook example of invalid reasoning based on a
>>>> logical fallacy that's been understood and documented for hundreds of
>>>> years. It's not like I'm making this stuff up. And don't forget: I'm not
>>>>
>>>> saying "everyone is wrong"--I'm only saying *"Yes-huh...you can even go
>>>>
>>>> ask Andrew Nacin!"* is not a valid argument.
>>>
>>>
>>> People don't respect the opinions of leaders because of their
>>> responsibilities. In a meritocracy, they earn respect and responsibility
>>> based on their opinions.
>>>
>>> From an old essay [1] stemming from the GNOME project, "In the presence
>>> of good rationale, maintainers should be willing to change their mind
>>> often." You've failed to meet the first part.
>>>
>>> You're misusing appeal to authority. The fallacy is that because I have
>>> authority, I must be right. We never presented you with that premise,
>>> however, and provided many others. You can't spout "appeal to authority"
>>> whenever you disagree with the outlined reasons. Period.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:29 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look, if you can't even agree on the simple fact that a theme is
>>>> supposed to be a *theme*, then this discussion is getting into the
>>>> "pointless" territory pretty darned fast.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> I think we're done here. You're welcome to post your theme-plugin hybrid
>>> output-buffering frankenstein thing on your own site.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  [1] http://ometer.com/features.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Darren Slatten
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
-Darren Slatten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110703/617e490c/attachment-0001.htm>