[theme-reviewers] Help on theme review - Did I waste my time?

Sun May 29 20:42:35 UTC 2011

Let me be clear: I don't speak for the Theme Review Team. I have never
claimed that I speak for the Theme Review Team.

Also: a Theme Trac ticket is not the place for "thinking [things] out". The
developer needs to be given concrete instruction.

As for decisions being passed through the "core" team: we've been discussing
this topic for some time, and the discussion continues.

As for any intent to "stifle" Theme developers: I personally consider users'
control of their own content to be far more important than any imposition
placed on Theme developers - but even so, I have absolutely no intention to
"stifle" Theme developers.

Chip

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net
> wrote:

>  The theme failed due to your 'thinking of handling of a specialized
> theme'. and your response to said questioning was defined and specific, not
> "thinking it out".
>
> If you're going to make something 'specific' then make it specific and in
> the rules until then there was no reason to fail that theme due to them
> having a post type - other reason's sure.
>
> ComicPress AND Easel both use concepts of 'creation of content' inside of
> them that do *not* fit in a plugin since it's specialized particular for the
> theme itself, that theme the other user is the same way, it's a waste of
> plugin space and end user compliancy to go get yet-another-plugin that will
> only work with a singular theme.
>
> As for your opinion, no; you speak for the group when you're speaking for a
> group your opinions are not your own.
>
> I will be requesting that the theme-review team have to have all their
> 'decisions' be passed through the core team in the future towards whatever
> specifics are made by the theme review team.  There obviously needs some
> sort of checks and balances done.   If in the least passed through Otto
> first.
>
> I am bringing back the original debate that was done a long time ago where
> theme designers were very argumentative towards 'stiffling' the themes that
> are made, this is a prime example of [holding back] the designers from
> creating unique and individual works.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 1:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Help on theme review - Did I waste my
> time?
>
> Of course I can disagree. My opinion is my own, and only I inform my own
> opinion. I claim no "authoritarian" viewpoint; I was merely clarifying a
> question from a ticket review.
>
> We're right now in the process of thinking out handling of specialized
> Themes. It was the major topic of yesterday's meeting. It will be posted as
> a discussion topic on the Make site. Nothing is set in stone. Further,
> nobody has said anything about removing the possibility of specialized
> Themes in the Repository. Part of that implementation is going to be outside
> of the control of the Theme Review Team (see also: Child Themes), and I am
> 100% in favor of finding all possible means of supporting specialty/niche
> Themes. The vast untapped potential of WordPress lies in such Themes.
>
> But I will continue to argue the principle of separation of content
> *creation* and content *presentation*, and the principle of user content not
> being locked-in to any particular Theme.
>
> Chip
>
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>
>>  Unfortunately I disagree that you "can" disagree.  This is not a
>> position that you have authoritarian viewpoint over.  The "stance" that the
>> theme review team will remove any possibility of 'specialized' themes on the
>> repository including mine, as well as any future themes that are contain as
>> such; not withholding themes like the one that was on the repo for awhile
>> that handled 'trouble tickets' if you remember that one.
>>
>> Again, you are limiting the repository again and this needs to be
>> rethought out a bit more.
>>
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>   *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:55 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Help on theme review - Did I waste my
>> time?
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> There needs to be some assurance that the Plugin will be maintained for as
>> long as the Theme is maintained, otherwise, the Plugin will simply be a
>> release-one-and-forget affair. Requiring the Theme to *use* the Plugin,
>> rather than incorporate the functionality, ensures that users will have a
>> maintained Plugin, and will retain use/control of their data, without being
>> locked in to any particular Theme.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  A plugin is just an extension of the theme to allow for usage in
>>> multi-variety themes, while content creation that is specific for an
>>> individual theme should be allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:42 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Help on theme review - Did I waste my
>>> time?
>>>
>>> The reason for that review comment is that it is the current stance of
>>> the Theme Review Team that Theme functionality should involve *presentation*
>>> of data only, and that *creation* of content should be handled by Plugins.
>>> User data should not be subject to Theme "lock-in", but should be available
>>> to the user, regardless of what Theme is used.
>>>
>>> The Repository/WordPress are not yet well-suited to handle "niche" Themes
>>> - though we certainly hope that both will better-accommodate such Themes in
>>> the future, given the vast potential of such Themes.
>>>
>>> As a compromise, we are currently asking that any Theme that *creates*
>>> data (such as via a Custom Post Type) port that functionality to a Plugin
>>> (approved and available in the Plugin Repository), and use/integrate the
>>> Plugin functionality. This way, if the user switches Themes, his data are
>>> still available, since such data will be handled by the Plugin.
>>>
>>> (Note: this requirement means that the Theme should actually be
>>> *dependent* upon the Plugin, rather than making the Plugin itself part of
>>> the Theme. It ensures that the Plugin functionality is kept current with
>>> Theme development, so that users retain access to/control of their content
>>> for as long as the developer maintains the Theme - and therefore, the
>>> Plugin.)
>>>
>>> In the case of your Theme, porting the CPT functionality to a Plugin
>>> shouldn't be more than a 5-minute (or so) process. Then, you'll just need to
>>> ensure that the Theme checks for the Plugin being active and/or the CPT
>>> being available.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Diana K. Cury <dianakac at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Please, someone could clarify
>>>> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/4032
>>>>
>>>> I'm not undertanding this:
>>>>
>>>>  *Even though there are a few changes to be made I cannot approve this
>>>> theme because of the implementation of custom post types which is required
>>>> to be implemented as a plugin. (...)*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where, who said that post types should be implemented only as a plugin,
>>>> if so, why anyone said me tha before I re-submit the theme ten times?
>>>>
>>>> Also, that stands for a built in plugin or a standalone one (submit as a
>>>> plugin in Plugin Directory)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20110529/06e5a698/attachment-0001.htm>