[theme-reviewers] Obsolete Themes Discussion

Tue Jul 26 00:50:29 UTC 2011

But I think we need a short-term solution. The current situation is
horribly, terribly, bad for end users, when they install a Theme that, since
it is tied directly into their WP-Admin interface, comes with an implied
endorsement of its fitness for use.

What do you suggest? Should we just go ahead and start suspending
sufficiently old/obsolete Themes?

At least with Cais' idea, even if WPORG doesn't display a section in Extend
for the "second" repository, the Themes will still exist in some
not-suspended state.

I'm open to any ideas you might have here...

Chip

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:

> At some nebulous undefined point in the future, themes and plugins
> will likely both get an overhaul. It's something that's been bugging
> me and Nacin for a long time, but we've never had the time to sit down
> and figure it out.
>
> When that happens (and it will be a relatively long time), then this
> discussion will be useful, as what themes get migrated over to the new
> system will be up-for-debate. Until then, it's fun to think about, but
> I don't expect any action arising from it. It needs core backing to
> redefine and reimagine the system. Just creating a new one
> because-we-can ain't enough to get it done.
>
> The best thing to think of is this: What should a new themes directory
> be? What should it do? What new features should it have? Creating
> something new is easier to sell when you have actual new functionality
> and new core support needed for it.
>
> -Otto
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> > And I'm in exactly the opposite camp (though I agree with Cais' suggested
> > implementation): obsolete Themes cause all manner of problems for end
> users.
> > (If you don't believe me, try spending an hour a day in the WPORG "Themes
> > and Templates" and "Troubleshooting" forums.)
> > Older Themes have much to offer, especially the well thought-out and
> > well-designed ones. But that doesn't mean that end users should be made
> to
> > suffer because those Themes have obsolete functionality and code.
> > If we can make the "OoD Themes" repository idea work, then I'm all for
> it!
> > Chip
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Edward Caissie <
> edward.caissie at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> PS: The whole idea behind this is I see no reason to suspend a theme
> >> simply because it is old ... if there are security issues due to old
> code
> >> sure, but simply being out-dated really is not a great reason. Just
> consider
> >> the "senior" citizens of our world, they're old, should they be trundled
> off
> >> to some place out of site, out of mind left to obscurity? I say NO!
> Some,
> >> possibly many, are still very capable of providing valuable knowledge
> and
> >> experience to the younger crowd.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cais.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Edward Caissie <
> edward.caissie at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> @Vicky -
> >>>
> >>> Let's start by setting aside the code that would have to be written and
> >>> just discuss the ideals of moving versus suspending themes ...
> >>>
> >>> In simple terms, at least the way I understand it, the current
> repository
> >>> is a heavily modded bbPress installation that has one forum and the
> process
> >>> of approving a theme into the repository either creates a new topic or
> >>> overwrites the existing one for every theme. Now, consider a second
> "forum"
> >>> for out-dated themes; and, rather than suspend a theme that uses old or
> >>> outdated functions or methods simply move it into the new Out of Date
> (OoD)
> >>> forum and use the same processes currently in use for current themes.
> >>>
> >>> I would continue with *not* having the OoD themes be searchable from
> the
> >>> Administration Panels but only viewable from the dot-org listing as in
> add
> >>> another menu item under extend: Themes, OoD Themes, Plugins, Mobile.
> >>> Minimizing the search methods would help reduce the code impact, while
> >>> still making them readily available and findable.
> >>>
> >>> Continuing even further down the road, on sort sort of schedule
> relevant
> >>> to the stable version releases the OoD themes are marked as available
> for
> >>> "adoption"; or in other words you can pick up that old theme, give it
> new
> >>> life, and re-submit it to the repository meeting current guidelines and
> >>> carry on updating it as your own. This currently is actually possible
> but
> >>> manually intensive. I would imagine there would be plenty of time to
> create
> >>> a more automated approach if the first parts are brought online.
> >>>
> >>> Just some thoughts ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cais.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Vicky Arulsingam
> >>> <vicky.arulsingam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm intrigued by this second repository idea - how would it work?
> >>>>
> >>>> As for cut-off, I agree for removing WP 2.8 themes from Extend but one
> >>>> question:
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there any way to inform users that they're using an obsolete theme?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/26/11, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> >>>> > Just as an FYI, a WP 2.9 cutoff would put the cutoff on about Page
> >>>> > 37<http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/browse/updated/page/37/>,
> >>>> > resulting in the suspension of 58 of 95 pages of Themes; and a WP
> 2.8
> >>>> > cutoff
> >>>> > would put the cutoff on about Page
> >>>> > 57<http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/browse/updated/page/57/>,
> >>>> > resulting in the suspension of 38 of 95 pages of Themes.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Cais: any further thoughts on your "secondary repository" idea, that
> >>>> > we
> >>>> > might be able to implement here?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Chp
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net
> >
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> I support this as well, but we need buy-in from higher up.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I would propose WordPress 2.9 (December 18, 2009) is the *ideal*
> >>>> >> cutoff -
> >>>> >> or, barring that, WordPress 2.8 (June 11 2009), as the "generous"
> >>>> >> cutoff.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I will raise the flag, if there is general consensus?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Chip
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>
> >>>> >> wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>> I noticed that this theme was last updated in 2008 -- it seems
> like,
> >>>> >>> as we're just now gearing up for the next release cycle, it might
> be
> >>>> >>> a
> >>>> >>> good time to revisit enforcement of the "must be kept up-to-date"
> >>>> >>> guideline? I'd welcome autosuspension of themes that haven't been
> >>>> >>> updated in n core versions with a "please update" message to the
> dev
> >>>> >>> (where n is a somewhat generous number).
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com>
> >>>> >>> wrote:
> >>>> >>> > Yes and thank you. Theme has been suspended from the directory.
> >>>> >>> > They
> >>>> >>> > had
> >>>> >>> at
> >>>> >>> > least one more site which was suspended in the past.
> >>>> >>> >
> >>>> >>> > ----
> >>>> >>> > Emil Uzelac | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac
> |
> >>>> >>> > E:
> >>>> >>> > emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
> >>>> >>> > Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert
> >>>> >>> Einstein
> >>>> >>> >
> >>>> >>> >
> >>>> >>> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, esmi at quirm dot net
> >>>> >>> > <esmi at quirm.net>
> >>>> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> >>> >>
> >>>> >>> >> <http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/3d-realty>
> >>>> >>> >>
> >>>> >>> >> The link on the theme's Repo page and in the footer of the
> theme
> >>>> >>> >> leads
> >>>> >>> to
> >>>> >>> >> an SEO site. No mention of the theme anywhere on the SEO site.
> >>>> >>> >>
> >>>> >>> >> Mel P.
> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >>> >> 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
> >>>> >>>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> -----
> >>>> Vicky Arulsingam
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110725/91f3b071/attachment.htm>