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

Emil Uzelac emil at uzelac.me
Tue Jul 16 09:52:18 UTC 2013 

Just the FYI. Since this was not a team decision we can vote either
recommend or remove completely. So far this was not an issue and we are
planning to keep that way. Nothing to require. We are the team, not one
person making decisions. Sorry.
On Jul 16, 2013 3:50 AM, "Emil Uzelac" <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> I've contacted all of the admins about this, we need to decide if
> this is a team or one person decision only. Sorry, I cannot stand
> the bureaucracy no more. And again, no disrespect to anyone and
> taking all as my personal opinion only :)
>
> Thanks for the input :)
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Sami Keijonen <sami.keijonen at foxnet.fi>wrote:
>
>> I vote for no for only recommending analytics scripts, SEO stuff, Custom
>> Post Types etc. in a theme. All the reasons have been discussed several
>> times here and other places.
>>
>> But this list really isn't best place for community to decide or vote
>> something like this. There should be open poll for this. For example
>>
>> 1. SEO stuff in a theme
>>
>> a) It's required not to use them
>> b) It's recommended not to use theme
>> c) I don't know or care
>>
>>
>> On 16 July 2013 00:43, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sami Keijonen
>> Fox Holding Oy
>> sami.keijonen at foxnet.fi
>> www.foxnet.fi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130716/4ea5a1b7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list