[theme-reviewers] theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 38, Issue 99

wp-mailing at fklein.info wp-mailing at fklein.info
Tue Jul 16 07:32:09 UTC 2013 

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:54:37 +0000,
theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org wrote:
> Send theme-reviewers mailing list submissions to
> 	theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	theme-reviewers-owner at lists.wordpress.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of theme-reviewers digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory? (Emil Uzelac)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:54:33 -0500
> From: Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me>
> To: "Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers."
> 	<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Webmaster Tools IDs - plugin territory?
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAEytdhdfkRRNHJuWX_Ygh3qLs52-8ewUnC7Ss4HdqJ9-nfq+EQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Authors that offer this as an optional feature via Theme Options
> should not be allowed to include them with their Themes! Why?
> 
> I really don't see the reason to ban this from Themes. Recommend,
> sure, let's do that, but to say no, you cannot, is just wrong :)
> 
> Excluding this from Themes (*in case that author does not fork*
> *into a plugin*) will "break" the Theme and that user experience we
> talked about will be a terrible one. Not to mention the author.
> 
> So in this case it's fine to do that because that's the guideline
> but it is not if the same user decides to switch the Theme and
> loses their features. Sorry I don't buy that.
> 
> *Cease and desist :(*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Justin Tadlock
> <justin at justintadlock.com>wrote:
> 
>>  I've stayed out this discussion because I thought it'd be over with by
>> now.  This particular case seems to be clear-cut plugin territory.  I can't
>> think of a good reason for Analytics codes, Webmaster IDs, and stuff like
>> that to be in a theme.  It doesn't make sense from a developer or user
>> perspective.
>>
>> Would I reject a theme for one of these things?  Probably not if that was
>> the only issue, but I'd ask for it to be removed in the next version.
>>
>> There are other borderline plugin/theme things that would've made for a
>> better discussion.
>>
>>
>> On 7/15/2013 4:10 PM, Emil Uzelac wrote:
>>
>> 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 listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://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/bf365b3f/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 38, Issue 99
> ***********************************************

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list