[theme-reviewers] Proposed criteria change for Commercially Supported GPL Themes page

[Edward Caissie]

I see having Commercial Theme houses being required to have at least one
"free" theme hosted on the dot-org repository as either a good thing or
having no affect on most everyone involved.

It's good for the commercial theme houses as it adds an avenue for them to
"advertise" their existence as well as their skills. This would provide the
community (high) quality themes and possible insights into how a "paid"
theme may be supported by these same authors aside from what end-users may
be able to read from reviews, word-of-mouth, etc. ... and the WPTRT would,
or at least should, see some quality code to review.

No matter the case, a commercial theme house submission may require a bit
more time to validate against the "up-sell" guidelines but in the end it is
simply another theme that needs to be reviewed and processed like any other
theme submission; and should be treated in exactly the same fashion.
Although the question that this brings to mind, since there is a time
element to this possible guideline, is what happens to the Commercial Theme
house's listing if the free theme (especially in cases where there is only
one free theme in the repository from the author) is subsequently resolved
to "not-approved"?

Edward Caissie
aka Cais.


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Scott-
>
> Thank you for asking for the team's advice.
>
> I know this is a difficult request to make, but having been asked to
> customize some terribly coded "premium themes" I wish there was a coding
> standard included in the requirement. Given that being listed ont hat page
> could be seen as being "approved by WordPress" don't you think there should
> be some defense for consumers against bad practices?
>
> Also, I think requiring these theme shops to have a free theme in the
> repository is a good idea, it actually partially address my first point,
> since that theme would have to meet the theme review standards. My concern
> is that this will add more themes to the review backlog, which is 4-6
> weeks, and make it even harder for developers like me, who do not offer
> premium themes to get our themes listed in a timely manner.
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "*A requirement to use the wordpress.org forum would be a little bit
>> counter-productive. On the other hand, users might expect that.*"
>>
>> Not sure there's any plans to make that happen, but I agree. Would
>> definitely not want to see it become mandatory to use .org forums under any
>> circumstance. Should always remain optional.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130512/b45db10d/attachment.html>