[theme-reviewers] Submitting a One-Page Placeholder Theme

[Edward Caissie]

I agree with doing our best to keep the process easily understood and easily
implemented by all involved: Theme Authors and Theme Reviewers ... our goal
is to provide more for the community and especially the end-users.
Since @Otto feels confident enough to basically say he can sort out pretty
much anything we come up with notwithstanding any truly outlandish ideas.

I agree the next step should be to get buy-in from WordPress.org et al.; the
question is now: whom do we take this to directly?

... or, Otto? Do we just flesh out the idea and have you put it into
code/action?


Cais.


On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> I was trying to start from the most-simple, and work toward more complex as
> necessary.
>
> At the simplest, the Theme developer documents the "niche" nature of the
> Theme in readme.txt, and explains its special usage. At the same end of the
> complexity spectrum, the Theme developer adds the special-consideration
> rationale in as an in-ticket comment, before the review commences.
>
> At the more-complex end of the spectrum, but easier on the Reviewers, we
> would have a submission form to request a theme-slug to be white-listed,
> with an explanation of the "niche" nature of the Theme, and rationale for
> special consideration.
>
> From the user perspective, I would also like to see a new Filter Tag class:
> perhaps "Special-Use Themes", with tags such as "landing-page", etc. (or,
> even just "special-use").
>
> I'm with you: I'm all for getting more, great Themes into the repository,
> and for encouraging and facilitating innovative uses of WordPress Themes.
> The bigger problem - and the one that we can't solve - will be the same
> problem we have with Child Themes: the powers-that-be may kibbosh the entire
> idea, due to lack of Extend/wp-admin back-end exposure/handling of niche
> Themes. So, we should get their buy-in before we explore the idea too far.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I'm good with something like that.
>> I think we also need to specify the Theme Author must explain why they
>> need/want to have their specific theme by-pass the upload checks in their
>> "User request"; maybe a form submission (a la plugins) rather than having it
>> hit this mailing list?
>>
>> I'm all for finding a way to open the repository to quality niche themes,
>> but something tells me Pandora's box may be in the shadows ... are we
>> missing anything?
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Here's how I'm currently envisioning it:
>>>
>>>    1. User requests theme-slug whitelist
>>>    2. Otto/Pross adds theme-slug to bypass white-list
>>>    3. User uploads Theme, using the Uploader
>>>    4. Ticket created
>>>    5. Ticket keyword "niche" (or "uploader-bypass" or whatever) appended
>>>    6. Ticket gets sorted into new Queue (just like BuddyPress Themes
>>>    have their own queue)
>>>
>>> From there, the process is pretty much the same, except that the actual
>>> *review* will be far more manual.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like the theme-slug white-list, versus the author white-list, in
>>>> conjunction with a tag/keyword.
>>>> Also, the reviewer(s) will need to be able to easily see the theme would
>>>> require special attention after the first approved version goes live.
>>>>
>>>> I take it this would be a completely manual process into the repo, or
>>>> would we be going with a proper submission after the theme passes the
>>>> niche/non-niche criteria and the white-list(s) have been updated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cais.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > So, same thing, except for white-listed *usernames*, rather than
>>>>> > *theme-slugs*?
>>>>> > My issue with that idea is that, then, even that user's *non-niche*
>>>>> Themes
>>>>> > would bypass the checks (and most likely, the Reviewer will have no
>>>>> idea of
>>>>> > this occurrence - unless the Trac ticket includes some relevant
>>>>> > notification). Thus, if we're going to go to the trouble of
>>>>> white-listing, I
>>>>> > think theme-slug makes more sense than username.
>>>>> > And speaking of Trac handling: I like the idea of appending a
>>>>> relevant
>>>>> > *ticket keyword* for such Themes, so that we can process them
>>>>> separately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theme slug would work too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tags or keywords could be added too.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Otto
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20111028/c7347e16/attachment.htm>