[theme-reviewers] Tuesday's meeting

[Srikanth Koneru]

Not sure what conflict with WordPress.org you are talking about but the
conflict I had in mind is this :
Themeshop owner/employee has his/their themes in new/updated list and they
may delay the next push as long as possible to get as much exposure of
being on theme directory as possible, even if he is genuinely busy, others
may interpret it that way.

So in my opinion neutral person should be first preference, just an opinion.


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Philip Arthur Moore <philip at pressbuild.com>
wrote:

> If you find a completely neutral, unbiased, amazing theme reviewer
> good enough for WordPress.org who does not own a theme shop or make
> themes that would in any way "conflict" with WordPress.org, let me
> know. I've been looking for unicorns.
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess stepping stone in figurative pyramid comment gave me wrong idea.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's my take on (and original intent for proposing) the role of
> "trusted
> >> reviewer": they are reviewers who are experienced enough, and who
> perform
> >> thorough and complete enough reviews, to be *trusted* to push approved
> >> themes Live - either directly (in the case of their own tickets) or
> >> indirectly (in the case of the admin review queue.
> >>
> >> No more, no less. Not a "path to admin", not a title or recognition.
> Just
> >> those competent to push themes live.
> >>
> >> It's also not a status symbol or exclusive club. As far as I'm
> concerned,
> >> it should be something available to every single reviewer.
> >>
> >> The whole point is to facilitate the review process while ensuring that
> >> themes with critical issues don't end up in end users' hands.
> >>
> >> On Aug 28, 2014 5:38 PM, "Jose Castaneda" <jomcastaneda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As some of you are aware, and even attended, our meeting on tuesday
> went
> >>> good. If you would like to read the logs:
> >>>
> https://irclogs.wordpress.org/chanlog.php?channel=wordpress-themes&day=2014-08-26&sort=asc#m106404
> >>>
> >>> The basis of the meeting was to define the role of a key/trusted
> >>> reviewer. That person will have the ability to push themes live but
> not the
> >>> ability to assign tickets, sort of a sub-admin type of role. As Cais
> >>> mentioned the key things the admins are looking for are:
> >>>
> >>> * experience
> >>> * community involvement
> >>> * high quality reviews
> >>>
> >>> He also notes that he, and the other admins, would love more feedback.
> >>> Seriously, I cannot emphasize that part enough, folks. The more
> feedback we
> >>> provide the better we are as a team. It can't all be one sided. I know
> there
> >>> have been a few that speak up from time to time and some that hold
> back.
> >>> This is your time to have your voice heard and make an impact on not
> just
> >>> our team but the entire WordPress project because of this.
> >>>
> >>> What other things do you want to add to the list of criteria?
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20140829/89e92eb6/attachment.html>