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

[Scott Reilly]

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. My theme is eligible right NOW, but being denied, that is why I'm
> concerned for it being accepted at any point in the future regardless. My
> theme already meets the criteria. It was denied because my shop only offers
> one theme. Okay, great that's fine.
>

As had been explained to you before, the requirement for a theme shop
having more than one theme is implied in the existing guidelines,
though not explicitly stated. However, the first guideline begins by
clearly stating "Distribute 100% GPL themes". In order to distribute
"themes" there must be more than one.


> Only, it's not even an unwritten rule as it's not being applied to anyone
> else. Themes before, during and after mine that also only have one premium
> theme have been accepted. That's pretty black and white, does that require
> further explanation on my part of where I'm coming from, really?
>

What theme shop currently in the listing only distributes a single theme?

A number of shops were recently removed for that reason, and others
have had their requests rejected for that reason. Have the guidelines
been unevenly applied in the past? No doubt, which is why all listed
theme shops were re-evaluated in light of the guidelines. Shops have
been removed for similar as well as completely different reasons.


> 2. I also had quite a lengthy conversation off-list (not my choice - I hate
> off-list conversation - I think anything worth being said can be said
> in-list, that's the point of a community) coming at me a bit more
> aggressively in the same vein of "Bryan, don't you get it... we're trying to
> help you...". No, of course I don't get it, I'm not a mind reader... I'm not
> privy to your private conversations.
>
> The content of this actual in-list discussion has NOTHING to with or even
> comes close to mentioning anything about this unwritten "rule" and working
> towards getting theme shops listed that were denied hastily in the past. It
> has simply proposed a new unrelated idea for theme inclusion criteria. It
> wouldn't take an intelligent person to pick up the subtext of this
> discussion, again, it would take a psychic.
>

I don't expect for you to have known that any purposed criteria
changes had any specific relation to you. You were an example of but a
few considerations. Your denial in the past is not something we
consider hasty.


> 3. I want to reiterate again, even if I did somehow glean that this would
> somehow be good towards resolving my issue (which nobody would) it still
> doesn't address the initial problem in the first place. The fact that I was
> denied for reasons that others were not.
>
> That's not a rule, that's not an unwritten rule, that's not even a judgment
> call, that's singling someone out whether intentional or not, the end-result
> is the same, I was singled out, that is a fact. Maybe if I received an
> explanation or acknowledgment along the lines of "Yes, other themes were
> approved accidentally that also only had one theme shop, this was due to the
> fact that we were backed up with emails and were reviewing a bit quicker
> than usual..." or something along those lines. But instead, I'm met with
> confusion or offense at what I'm trying to say like I'm just speaking
> gibberish.
>

You're taking things way too personal. You were provided the same sort
of explanation other shops were provided for failing to meet the
criteria that were in place.


-Scott