[theme-reviewers] Second opinion on Theme Name issue

[Emil Uzelac]

no problem

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Konstantin Obenland <konstantin at obenland.it
> wrote:

> Appreciated, thanks! :)
>
> On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>
> Done!
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:41 AM, Konstantin Obenland <
> konstantin at obenland.it> wrote:
>
>> I decided to move the issue to a separate thread.
>>
>> Again, I'd really appreciate a second opinion on
>> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/8872 preferably in-ticket,
>> unless there are globally applicable rules for this type of situation.
>>
>> @kwight
>> That's the thing: it was never actually approved, since it's been around
>> since before there was Theme Reviews.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Konstantin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>
>> @obenland
>>
>> If theme was previously approved, technically the requirement becomes
>> RECOMMENDED instead of REQUIRED. Although the name really shouldn't have
>> "Framework" in it either, and doesn't seem to have an approved version for
>> over two years...
>>
>> Anyone else?
>>
>> On 16 August 2012 08:17, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> The theme works without paying – just the additional features he
>>> mentions require activation. This is a typical up-sell situation, which is
>>> allowed.
>>>
>>> I would have other issues with the theme, mainly content being cut off
>>> (check long site titles, posts, and the pipe test). But the theme works as
>>> described without an activation code.
>>>
>>> As for saying that he has other themes approved, that really means
>>> nothing. Every theme needs to be evaluated on its own merit, regardless of
>>> who submitted it and how many themes they already have approved.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 August 2012 08:07, Chandra Maharzan <maharzan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is what I don't agree with.
>>>>
>>>> When his theme is activated, he is redirecting to Theme Options page
>>>> where users have to put activation code (pay him). Below that are
>>>> theme options, which doesn't work unless activation code is posted. I
>>>> think he should deactivate the redirection code and hide the theme
>>>> options as they don't work by default. Perhaps put a page called
>>>> Upgrade where people can put the activation code?
>>>>
>>>> What do you guys suggest?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Chandra Maharzan <maharzan at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > And he says he has 2 other themes which has been approved earlier.
>>>> > What is the norm ?
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Konstantin Obenland
>>>> > <konstantin at obenland.it> wrote:
>>>> >> While we're at it:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I also would really appreciate a second opinion on
>>>> >> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/8872
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Theme has been around longer than Theme Reviews (which is why I
>>>> didn't
>>>> >> realize it is already active) but is in conflict with Theme Name
>>>> guidelines.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Konstantin
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Aug 16, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
>>>> philip at frumph.net>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I don't believe "crippleware" is allowed.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -----Original Message----- From: Chandra Maharzan Sent: Wednesday,
>>>> August
>>>> >> 15, 2012 11:27 PM To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org Subject:
>>>> >> [theme-reviewers] need your opinion
>>>> >> I have been reviewing this theme:
>>>> >> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/9084#comment:5
>>>> >>
>>>> >> He has Theme options but it doesn't work unless people activate (pay)
>>>> >> the author. And then he is arguing about sanitation of data fields,
>>>> >> which Theme Review clearly says to do them (esc_html, esc_attr,etc).
>>>> >> Someone please enlighten me here.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks,
>>>> >> Chandra
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> cmans
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> 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
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > cmans
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> cmans
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20120817/7ea16574/attachment-0001.htm>