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

[Emil Uzelac]

via uploader* dang it!


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> 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/20130715/55194fc8/attachment-0001.html>