[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?

[Edward Caissie]

TL;DR: The idea of a version number in the theme name as not acceptable is
a valid point.

Do we really need to write a new guideline (or re-write the existing) to
make this more clear. I can go do that right now if necessary but I think
some common sense should be applied in much the same way that the plugin
repository does not allow for it. Granted the two repositories have their
differences but there is no reason not to follow common sense and shared
ideals.

I can appreciate your concern about potentially breaking some (all?) sites
if this theme was released as an update to its predecessor but simply put
if it is that vastly different and there is no backward compatibility then
it really is a new theme and should have its own name. Let its code; its
layout; and, its poetry stand on its own merits.

I'm not looking to carry this argument on wether or not the theme name is
valid ... in this case I do not consider it to be acceptable.

We're not stopping you from using your "brand" ... by all means feel free
to release a theme named Responsive II wherever you would like. We're just
saying it's not an acceptable name in the WordPress Theme repository.
Nothing against CyberChimps, its actually something that I would like to
view as a benefit for your "brand" as well as other theme author's "brand"
names. We should not be allowing most anything similarly named to another
theme when used, as in this specific example, with the Responsive name
foremost. We're not telling you no specifically. We're telling everyone,
"No one can submit a theme named Responsive II", because quite simply if we
allow you to submit Responsive II we would be setting a precedent to allow
someone else to submit Responsive III ... and that would be a different
rabbit hole again.

Edward Caissie
aka Cais.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com>
wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> Why don’t the admins “let it go” and let me name my own products with my
> own brands. :-p
>
> --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
> http://CyberChimps.com
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> Skype: mobiletrent
>
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Daniel Fenn <danielx386 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After watching this fight I felt like telling trent to listen to the
> song "let it go" from the movie frozen :)
>
> *Sits back and watches*
>
> On 9/27/14, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
>
> probably the last time where TRT is turned into (politely said) brothel!
>
> On Friday, September 26, 2014, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net
> >
> wrote:
>
>  Just going to giggle at this., and not cause any waves about it.
>
> *From:* Otto <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','otto at ottodestruct.com');>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 26, 2014 5:54 PM
> *To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org');>
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second
> version of a theme?
>
>  On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','trent at cyberchimps.com');>> wrote:
>
> The TRT has been over ruled by the WordPress Foundation, Matt himself,
> and has been greatly influenced by Automattic and Audrey Capitol.
>
>
> Trent, let's be a bit more civil than that. The Foundation, Matt, and
> those at Automattic have not done any such thing.
>
> If Emil and the other admins want to change the rules, then nobody's
> going
> to stop them. I personally think it's a bad idea, and I'll say so, but
> I'm
> not going to use any form of veto power for something that is ultimately
> so
> silly.
>
> When I want the rules to be changed, then I have to email those admins
> and
> convince them. Done it before.
>
> The only time I've ever been really adamant about anything with regards
> to
> the review guidelines was on the security aspects. No using eval and
> base64
> and such. Things like that. Those are pretty obvious and sell themselves,
> really. Those security things are the *only* thing I've ever pushed into
> the guidelines (via theme-check) unilaterally.
>
> My point was that talking to Emil and the other admins about it, in
> ticket, is far from pointless. They do have the power to give you an
> exception. They do have the power to change the guidelines. They do have
> the power to ignore any or all of the guidelines based on their best
> judgment. That's why they're the admins. I'm not going to stop them, nor
> is
> the Foundation, or Automattic. As for Matt, he likely doesn't have an
> opinion on the matter either way and would probably have no issue with
> it.
>
> There is no need to be quite so extremely confrontational like this every
> time you run into a minor disagreement. You don't need to convince me,
> but
> you probably could convince them.
>
> -Otto
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org');>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Daniel Fenn
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140926/6dc2ae7b/attachment-0001.html>