Introduction to the WordPress Community Debate
The recent WordCamp Canada event sparked a heated discussion about the WordPress community and its values. Matt Mullenweg, the co-founder of WordPress, addressed a question about how individuals and agencies can support the WordPress ecosystem against "bad actors" who don’t share the same community values. This question led to a broader discussion about the community’s divide and the importance of promoting ethical contributors and agencies within the ecosystem.
The Question That Started the Debate
The person asking the question had two main concerns: how to protect WordPress’s community values from exploitative or profit-driven actors, and whether a formal certification system should be implemented to identify and promote ethical contributors and agencies. The question assumed a polarization in the WordPress community, with exploitative profit-seeking "bad actors" on one side and ethical WordPress supporters on the other.
Mullenweg’s Response: Focusing on Actions, Not Actors
Mullenweg began his answer by stating that he doesn’t like to label anyone as a "bad actor." Instead, he focused on the importance of actions and how they can be used to create incentive systems that promote good behavior. He emphasized that every company or person can make mistakes, but it’s how they learn from those mistakes that matters. This approach was surprising, given that Mullenweg had previously used the term "bad actors" to describe WP Engine, a company he has been in a public dispute with.
The Importance of Motivating Good Behavior
Mullenweg discussed ways to motivate companies to give back to the WordPress community, such as enforcing the GPL and protecting the WordPress trademark. He also encouraged the community to vote with their wallets by spending money on companies that are defined as "good" and giving less to businesses that are presumably defined as "bad actors." This approach frames spending choices as a form of moral expression within the WordPress ecosystem.
The Dispute with WP Engine
Mullenweg’s comments were seen as a thinly veiled reference to his ongoing dispute with WP Engine. He mentioned a website called WordPressEngineTracker.com, which tracks the number of sites that have left a certain host. He claimed that the site was about to reach 100,000 sites that had switched to other hosts, and that over 74,000 sites had gone offline since September of last year. Mullenweg positioned himself as the victim of a court order that required him to take down a spreadsheet of WP Engine’s customers, framing the dispute as one about ethics and morals.
Conclusion
The debate at WordCamp Canada highlights the complexities of the WordPress community and the challenges of promoting ethical behavior within the ecosystem. Mullenweg’s comments encourage the community to take a stand against "bad actors" and to support companies that share the same values. However, the dispute with WP Engine raises questions about the role of ethics and morals in the WordPress community, and whether it’s possible to separate business and community interests. Ultimately, the WordPress community must navigate these complex issues and find a way to promote good behavior while also respecting the diversity of opinions and values within the ecosystem.