[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?
trent at cyberchimps.com
Sat Sep 27 00:25:40 UTC 2014
I brought this to the list to bring it to the attention of other admins and to get input from the community. There was no point in arguing with you over it, as you’re simply following the rules you have no power to change.
As admins, it is your job to uphold the rules, but it is also your job to ensure a quality user experience. So what happens when a rule is made that compromises user experience based on principles that have no place in this community?
I’m aware that the odds are an exception won’t be made, and the rule won’t be changed, but for the sake of millions of websites I’m going to at least purpose this question and hope that logic and reason wins out.
This is an illogical rule that basically prevents us from reusing our own brands to offer continuity to our users. This rule is essentially forcing communization of WordPress themes, and preventing theme authors from being able to reach their audience under identifiable product names. It’s a disturbing, closed approach that has no place in this open community.
CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:17 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
> And the problem was unsolvable in the ticket where we began? Just curious that's all :)
> On Friday, September 26, 2014, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com> wrote:
> I really do not want to go in circles over this issue.
> Problem: I need to be able to release Responsive 2.0 without breaking several million websites. We updated the grid to make it mobile first, and updated our code structure to be HTML5 compatible. If we make these changes to Responsive 1.x then we will break millions of websites.
> Purposed solution: Release it as “Responsive II” and maintain it as a separate theme, and maintain both Responsive, and Responsive II.
> What alternative solutions do the admins purpose?
> --Trent Lapinski
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> Skype: mobiletrent
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com> wrote:
>> How is it in the principles of open source to prevent theme authors from using our own brands? A restriction which is not applied to plugins. If I want to release CyberChimps Slider plugin, CyberChimps Security plugin, CyberChimps XYZ plugin I can.
>> Yet I cannot do the same thing for my themes?
>> I’m sorry, but this “rule” is ridiculous and needs to be modified not only for CyberChimps but everyone else. We should be able to control our own branding of our themes just the same as plugins.
>> Every major company from Apple to Samsung uses version numbers in product names. Examples: iPhone 6, Galaxy s5, etc. I shouldn’t have to rebrand an established product line because I want to release a new version.
>> Your slippery slope argument does not apply here. There is absolutely no harm that would come if theme authors are in control of the names of their themes and use similar branding. A simple distinction that once a brand name is established no other author can reuse it is all that is required to clarify the matter. For example, I shouldn’t be able to reuse another theme authors brand name, just as they shouldn’t be able to reuse mine.
>> However, this should not prevent a theme author from releasing multiple products under the same brand. Lets say for example I want to offer Responsive HD, Responsive Retina, Responsive New, Responsive XYZ, it shouldn’t matter. There is no logical argument you can make for why I shouldn’t be able to do so, as I’m already the original owner of the Responsive name and all the themes are created by the same author.
>> This is an open source community is it not? This a very narrow, and closed restriction that simply isn’t required. We shouldn’t be forced to retire 1.0 to reuse the name. The current system forces us to break peoples websites, how is that fair or reasonable?
>> --Trent Lapinski
>> CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
>> Twitter @trentlapinski
>> Skype: mobiletrent
>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not taking any sides but "Responsive" is already fair game : https://make.wordpress.org/themes/2013/02/26/clarifying-guidelines-for-theme-name/#comment-29874
>>> With regards to that specifically, I believe he was thinking more along the lines of a theme named something like "XYZ Responsive". or something like that. In such a case, the "XYZ" part is the name, the "responsive" is just a descriptive feature. Really, it's a spammy keyword technique, and we shouldn't allow it... but, whatever, that doesn't bother me that much.
>>> My concern is more along the lines of "versions are not supposed to be in names". We don't allow plugins that do this. You can't make "PluginX 2.0" as a plugin name. We get submissions that do this so much that we have a form letter response to send back to them.
>>> If it's an update, then it should actually update the original, not be a new one. You update the original "PluginX", not make a new entry for "PluginX 2". Calling a theme "Responsive II" or "2" or "Part Deux" or whatever you like violates this rather simple and basic principle. This is just my opinion, of course.
>>> "Weaver II" was allowed to do it because he retired Weaver at the same time. No conflict, no problem. If a theme was submitted named "AwesomeTheme 1.0" and the "1.0" part was actually in the name, I would hope we would reject that as well. Version numbers should not be in names.
>>> And a new entry in the directory should be treated as would any other new entry, not as an update to another entry.
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the theme-reviewers