[theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?
Dane Morgan
dane at danemorganmedia.com
Mon Jul 15 22:09:01 UTC 2013
I fully disagree, though I'm not sure what that is worth since i have
yet to start reviewing themes. I follow this more to learn and see
things develop. Though I am considering jumping it to volunteer as well.
On 2013-07-15 16:58, Emil Uzelac wrote:
> Anyone can change it, we just need to agree that this is acceptable :)
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Harish <me at harishchouhan.com
> <mailto:me at harishchouhan.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Emil,
>
> Now that is the perfect list. I hope admins, and whoever are in
> charge adopt this list. This will this end this discussion.
>
> Also when anything extra such as SEO options, custom post types
> are used, we can make it mandatory that the theme developer
> properly documents it somewhere so it's easier to use along with a
> mandatory warning about what would happen if theme is changed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harish Chouhan
>
> *Visit me at *- www.harishchouhan.com <http://www.harishchouhan.com/>
>
> **
>
> *From:*theme-reviewers
> [mailto:theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org>] *On Behalf
> Of *Emil Uzelac
> *Sent:* Tue 16 July 13 03:14 AM
>
>
> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin
> territory?
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:chip at chipbennett.net>
>
> *Sent:*Monday, July 15, 2013 8:27 AM
>
> *To:*Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:chip at chipbennett.net>
>
> *Sent:*Monday, July 15, 2013 5:12 AM
>
> *To:*Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto: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/cb6f514e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list