[theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?

Emil Uzelac emil at uzelac.me
Mon Jul 15 21:43:49 UTC 2013 

I would not base this on another Theme and yes it does seem unfair
for new Themes. The only items that should be required are:


   - Removing or modifying non-presentational core hooks
   - Disabling the admin toolbar
   - Resource compression/caching


robots.txt can be stopped via uploaded, so that part does not need
to be in.

And we can recommend the rest:


   - Analytics scripts
   - SEO options (meta tags, page title, post titles, robots.txt, etc.)
   - Content Sharing buttons/links
   - Custom post-content shortcodes
   - Custom Post Types
   - Custom Taxonomies


Good, not, what do you think?




On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Harish <me at harishchouhan.com> wrote:

> This sounds good for existing themes. However it would then seem unfair
> for new themes as old themes would have more features and the new once
> would feel of less value. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Instead, let us consider based on say popular themes such as Responsive,
> etc. and whatever features they have, make them acceptable for all new
> themes and lets just end that. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Harish **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* theme-reviewers [mailto:
> theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org] *On Behalf Of *Emil Uzelac
> *Sent:* Tue 16 July 13 02:41 AM
>
> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Would it be acceptable if this guideline<http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-plugin-territory/>does not apply to the Themes that are already in repository?
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Plugin Territory Guidelines are required for new Themes, and recommended
> for existing Themes.*****
>
> ** **
>
> If there are no security issues, conflict with the core etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> Am I asking too much, what do you think?****
>
> ** **
>
> P.S. Also only few of us are discussing this, are the rest not interested,
> affected, what's up?****
>
> ** **
>
> Emil ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
> philip at frumph.net> wrote:****
>
> Excuse me, Mr. Bennett.   As part of the ‘community’; there have been
> discussions for and against, yet YOU working OUT of the team made the
> determination as a requirement.    You completely ignored the make
> WordPress themes conversation when it was first discussed and decided ON
> YOUR OWN.    In an email with other’s they were still under the impression
> that it was ‘recommended’ still up until several weeks ago when it came
> back into topic of conversation.****
>
>  ****
>
> While it would be beneficial for you to believe you are in a team, your
> actions have stated otherwise.   From the very beginning to now.****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> ****
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2013 8:27 AM****
>
> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> ****
>
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> For the record: the Theme Review Admins work as a team. There is no
> "leader". It has always been that way, and will continue to be that way,
> unless and until we are told otherwise. ****
>
>  ****
>
> The community rep is just that: a liaison to communicate with the rest of
> the WordPress community. The community rep doesn't have to be one of the
> Admins (and I think it would be great if a non-admin would want to take up
> that role sometime).****
>
>  ****
>
> What we are engaging in at the moment is a *discussion*. As part of that
> discussion, Emil and I are expressing our opinions. It is not required that
> all Admins hold to the same opinion (nor would such be a benefit). ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
> philip at frumph.net> wrote:****
>
> End users have lived with it so far, there haven’t been any major
> complaints or suggestions on the forums to say the contrary.   I believe
> you are over emphasizing the severity.****
>
>  ****
>
> There are people including myself that do not agree with this and you
> personally are not listening to the community.  Which makes things
> difficult because you apparently have no one to answer to.   Last I checked
> Emil was lead at the moment and you are not.   When the community itself or
> members thereof do not like the results that are happening there needs to
> be someone that can be talked with that can mediate the situation and make
> a determination.****
>
>  ****
>
> It would behoove you to not be as adamant as you are.   Consider a
> compromise then, most of our ‘concerns’ with the myself and others who have
> had themes on the repo for a predominate amount of time would not like to
> see our end users have the headache that it will cause to add an additional
> plugin.   Hostings like 1and1 and some others are very limited with their
> memory usage; *so consider making it so that all NEW themes as a
> requirement to not include said plugin territory options and things in
> priority 1 should be a bit more lenient in reviewing updates*.****
>
>  ****
>
> I am already maxed out in tech support as it is where I do not have time
> nor the inclination to sit here and worry about 20,000+ people who are
> going to be emailing me or adding post after post on the forums concerning
> a new update which destroys their site.    Currently I already point them
> to the github instead of the repo.   I am positive that the repo was there
> for theme’s to be able to be stored and able to be a helpful tool for the
> end user and not a hindrance.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> ****
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 15, 2013 5:12 AM****
>
> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> ****
>
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Those when switching to one theme or another will have some things no
> longer work – and that is fine.  There are plenty of ways, avenues and
> programming that you can take to include those features into the theme you
> switch to.****
>
>  ****
>
> I disagree with "and that is fine." Most end users aren't developers, and
> won't have the skills or desire to take advantage of the "plenty of ways,
> avenues and programming" to add missing functionality to their new Theme.*
> ***
>
>  ****
>
> The single most important party in this consideration is not the Theme
> developer, or the Theme reviewers, but rather the Theme's end users. ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> The BIGGEST idea about that the don’t-worry-about-it group’s main
> objective is to make the theme review process easier and faster to get
> through.   The biggest thing that people get hung up on returning day after
> day to review themes is how time consuming they are to go through.   We
> also believe that it’s not the theme review team’s responsibility to
> control that aspect of allowing a theme to have a feature or not, that is
> up to the core dev’s to make that determination.****
>
>  ****
>
> The core team has made it the Theme Review Team's responsibility. ****
>
>  ****
>
> And I disagree that what you're suggesting would make Theme reviews
> easier. Why would a Theme review be easier if the Theme can include any
> manner of arbitrary functionality? Allowing functionality that goes beyond
> presentation of user content just means that much more code that a reviewer
> has to review, understand, and test. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Use all of the plugins, theme unit test and requirements for the backlinks
> and other things.   Do the cursory views of everything that’s important and
> move em through the review process. ****
>
>  ****
>
> That's not sufficient for the end user. Code needs to be secure. Included
> functionality needs to work properly.I contend that those considerations
> *are* important to end users. Thus, everything that a Theme indicates that
> it does needs to be tested during the review process.****
>
>  ****
>
> The single most important party in this consideration is not the Theme
> developer, or the Theme reviewers, but rather the Theme's end users.****
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130715/64f4e1ac/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list