# 📝 Transcript ## Overview This document summarizes the discussions and key points from a series of meetings held on various dates. The main topics include community reactions to controversial comments, legal and trademark issues, contributions to WordPress, and the impact of private equity on the WordPress ecosystem. The document also highlights action items to improve community unity, clarify contribution guidelines, and address branding and messaging issues. ## Greetings and Introductions - Andrew and another participant exchanged greetings. - Participants waited for others to join before starting the meeting. - Acknowledgment of Ruth as a new follower. ## Meeting Start The meeting officially began after a brief waiting period. ## Introduction - **Host**: Tia Wood (WP Girls) - **Co-Host**: Andrew Palmer (Somebody’s Hero) - **Purpose**: Discuss the latest developments in the WordPress community, specifically WP Engine and Matt Mullenweg’s Q&A at WordCamp US. - **Recording Notice**: The meeting is being recorded. ## Controversy Matt Mullenweg’s comments about WP Engine have sparked controversy and headlines. ## Community Reactions ### Twitter Opinions - **John Freyskos**: Criticized the divisive nature of the comments at an event meant to unite the community. - **Jeffrey Benke**: Highlighted the confusion between WP Engine and WordPress, emphasizing the need for clarity. ## 5 for the Future Initiative - **Explanation**: The initiative encourages contributing 5% of time or resources to the WordPress project. - **WP Engine’s Contribution**: Sponsors 11 contributors for a total of 40 hours per week across five teams. ## Discussion Points ### Matt Mullenweg’s Comments - **Criticism**: Matt Mullenweg called WP Engine a “cancer” to WordPress, urging the community to switch providers. - **Community Impact**: The comments have caused confusion and controversy within the community. ### Andrew Palmer’s Perspective - **Unnecessary Comments**: Believes the comments were unnecessary and should have been discussed privately. - **Contribution Debate**: Emphasizes that contributions should not be obligatory but appreciated. - **Branding Issues**: Suggests that WP Engine’s branding as “WordPress hosting” may have contributed to the controversy. ### Matt Mullenweg’s Response - **Apology**: Matt apologized for the situation but mentioned that it is now in the hands of lawyers. - **Contribution Philosophy**: Emphasized that 5 for the Future is a philosophy, not a strict rule. - **Brand Confusion**: Highlighted the unique situation of brand confusion between WP Engine and WordPress. ## Key Takeaways - **Community Unity**: The need to maintain a united community and avoid divisive comments. - **Contribution Clarity**: Clear guidelines and communication about contributions to the WordPress project. - **Branding and Messaging**: Importance of appropriate branding and messaging to avoid confusion. ## Trademark and Legal Issues ### Trademark Confusion and Legal Actions - **Trademark Confusion**: Concerns were raised about WP Engine causing confusion among consumers, with surveys showing a significant percentage mistaking it for an official WordPress product. - **Data**: Surveys commissioned by Automattic indicated confusion levels well above the 15% threshold typically used in trademark law. - **Legal Actions**: Both sides have filed cease and desist letters. ### Community Impact - **Legal Costs**: Concerns were raised about the resources being diverted to legal battles instead of benefiting the WordPress community. - **Community Fragmentation**: The ongoing legal disputes are seen as contributing to a fragmented community, which is already struggling to attract new professionals. ## Contribution to WordPress ### Contribution Recognition and Transparency - **Contribution Metrics**: Discussion on how contributions are measured and recognized, with a focus on transparency and avoiding moving targets. - **Example**: The “Five for the Future” initiative, which encourages organizations to contribute 5% of their resources to WordPress development. - **Transparency Issues**: There were calls for more clarity and documentation on how contributions are assessed and recognized. ### Expanding Contribution Recognition - **Types of Contributions**: Emphasis on recognizing a wide range of contributions, from code to community support. - **Example**: Highlighting contributions on individual profiles and badges to celebrate community efforts. - **Commercial vs. Commons**: Distinction between contributions that benefit the commons (everyone) versus those that are commercially motivated. ### Specific Contributions and Recognition - **WP Engine Contributions**: WP Engine’s contributions were discussed, with a focus on their reported 40 hours per week of contributions. - **Context**: This was highlighted in the context of their significant revenue, suggesting a need for proportional contributions. ## Community Engagement and Future Steps ### Encouraging Diverse Contributions - **Individual Contributions**: Encouragement for individuals to contribute in ways that align with their unique talents, whether through code, translations, or community support. - **Organizational Support**: Discussion on whether large companies should directly contribute or sponsor existing contributors. ### Legal Battle and Community Impact - **Backlash and Future Outlook**: There was a discussion on the backlash from the community regarding the legal battle and its potential negative impact. - **Future Strength**: Despite the current challenges, there is a belief that the community will emerge stronger. ## Silver Lake and WP Engine ### Background and Current Situation - **Silver Lake’s Influence**: The speaker expressed frustration with Silver Lake, stating, “I have now for many years, being strung along by Silver Lake, saying they were going to do the right thing.” - **WP Engine’s Ownership Change**: Automattic was an investor in WP Engine until Silver Lake, a private equity firm with $102 billion under management, bought WP Engine in 2018. This acquisition marked the beginning of significant changes. - **Key Figures**: Discussions have involved key individuals like Lee Wittlinger and Heather Brunner. ### Community Impact - **Exploitation of Open Source**: The speaker highlighted concerns about Silver Lake’s behavior, which spans multiple companies, including GoDaddy, and involves exploiting open source without giving back. - **Public vs. Private Resolution**: There was a debate on whether the issues should have been handled privately rather than in a public forum. ## WordPress Development and Community ### Ongoing Projects - **New Features**: Despite the distractions, the speaker assured that WordPress development continues with new features and improvements. “WordPress will be really cool. We’ve got some fun stuff launching.” - **Community Contributions**: The speaker manages 40 direct reports and collaborates with over 1,900 people at Automattic and thousands of contributors across WordPress. ### Community Concerns - **Impact on New Developers**: Concerns were raised about how the ongoing issues might affect new developers’ perception of the WordPress community. - **Public Perception**: The speaker acknowledged that community drama might not be relevant to most users but emphasized the importance of transparency. ### Internal and External Communications - **Information Sharing** - Leaks and Journalism: The speaker mentioned receiving information from inside WP Engine and anticipated that journalists would cover the story. - Support for Whistleblowers: The speaker offered support to those who pointed out wrongdoings within their company, ensuring their anonymity and protection. # 📝 Transcript (Continued) ### Discussion on GoDaddy and WP Engine #### Silver Lake’s Ownership and Control - **Silver Lake’s Control**: Silver Lake 100% owns and controls WP Engine but does not have the same level of control over GoDaddy. - **GoDaddy’s Independence**: GoDaddy is a public company with many owners and operates with more independence compared to WP Engine. - **Community Contributions**: GoDaddy has made significant contributions to the community, which is why it was not included in the same context as WP Engine. #### Board Membership and Influence - **Lee Wintlinger**: Mentioned as a board member of GoDaddy, which coincided with some past issues. ### Brand Confusion Survey #### Automattic’s Survey on Brand Confusion - **Survey Commission**: Automattic commissioned a survey on brand confusion. - **WordPress.com vs. WordPress.org**: There is confusion between WordPress.com and WordPress.org, but Automattic has a legal license to use the commercial trademark. - **Community Contribution**: Automattic contributes 3,900+ hours per week to the commons, benefiting the entire WordPress community. #### Clarification on WordPress Multi-Site - **WordPress Multi-Site**: Allows running multiple WordPress instances on a single install. Lower-priced plans on WordPress.com use multi-site, while higher-priced plans allow for arbitrary plugins and themes. ### WordPress Foundation and Trademark #### Foundation’s Role - **Trademark Control**: The WordPress Foundation controls the trademark with three board members, including Matt. - **Licensing Structure**: Matt has a license to operate WordPress.org, and Automattic has a commercial license for WordPress.com, which can be sub-licensed to other companies. ### Contribution and Community Involvement #### Definition of Contribution - **Broad Definition**: Contribution includes a wide range of activities, from code commits to helping others in the community. - **Legible Contributions**: Actions like commits, translations, and other visible activities are easier to track on WordPress.org. #### Sponsorship and Ecosystem - **Sponsorships**: Booth sponsorships and plugin development are part of the ecosystem but may not be considered direct contributions to the commons. - **Five for the Future**: Encourages companies benefiting from WordPress to contribute 5% back to the community. Contributions are self-reported and aim to foster a spirit of giving back. #### Ideal Outcome for WordPress - **Flourishing Community**: The goal is to create better software that democratizes publishing and makes more of the web open source. - **Threats**: Actors who take profits without contributing back pose a danger to the community. #### Contributions from Companies - **Revenue Contribution**: Companies making significant revenue should ideally contribute a portion back to the community, whether through people, trademark agreements, or sponsoring contributors. ### Keynote and Legal Dispute #### Introduction - **Co-host Replacement**: Jeff replaced as co-host. - **Keynote Discussion**: Discussion initiated by Matt regarding the recent keynote at WordCamp US. - **Legal Update**: WP Engine published a cease and desist within the last hour. #### Nature of the Dispute - **Parties Involved**: - **Matt vs. WP Engine**: The dispute involves Matt, WP Engine, and potentially Silver Lake and Lee Wittlinger. - **Matt’s Perspective**: - **Legacy**: Matt views open source as his legacy and is deeply invested in protecting it. - **Seriousness of Threats**: Stated that threats to the open source community are taken very seriously by him. ### Trademark Agreement #### Explanation - **Analogy**: Matt compared trademark usage to a restaurant serving Coca-Cola. Using a trademark doesn’t imply ownership or official endorsement. - **Licensing**: - **Non-Financial Agreements**: Trademark agreements can be non-financial. - **Example**: Allowing use of the WordPress logo if profits go back to the foundation. ### Community and Open Source #### Open Source Philosophy - **Matt’s Commitment**: He expressed a strong belief in open source and the desire to avoid license changes that would restrict contributions. - **Community Support**: He highlighted the positive feedback from the community and the importance of transparency. #### Concerns and Analogies - **Comparison to Other Companies**: Matt drew parallels to conflicts involving Elastic and Redis with Amazon. - **Backlash and Support**: He mentioned that there were mixed reactions but ultimately more support than backlash for his actions. ### WordCamp and Sponsorship #### Event Costs and Sponsorship - **Financials**: WordCamp US ticket prices are subsidized by sponsorships. - **Community Building**: Sponsorships provide advertising and foster community engagement through events. ### Legal Strategy and Transparency #### Legal Proceedings - **Current Status**: Both sides are developing legal strategies and expect smear campaigns and personal attacks. - **Matt’s Approach**: He remains committed to transparency, confident in his legal case, and has the support of top legal minds. #### Community Engagement - **Open Communication**: Matt highlighted his willingness to engage with the community through direct calls and public discussions. - **Importance**: Emphasized the value of maintaining open dialogue and addressing community concerns. ### Litigation Announcement #### Concerns and Clarifications - **Defendant Naming**: WordPress.org has been named as a defendant in the litigation, but the WordPress Foundation was not. Matt clarified that they are targeting him personally. - **Foundation Finances**: Stated that finances are controlled by the board, not by him personally. #### Cease and Desist Letter - **Main Parties Mentioned**: The letter primarily references the Board of Automattic and Matt himself. - **Statement Caution**: Due to the cease and desist letter, Matt must be careful with his statements. - **Collective Ownership**: Stressed that WordPress is owned and protected by the community. ### Hosting Issues and Experiences #### General Discussion - **WP Engine**: Mihai shared past negative experiences with WP Engine. The forum emphasized avoiding personal attacks and maintaining a constructive focus. ### Headless WordPress #### Architectural Decision - **Decoupled Approach**: Matt supports headless WordPress for about 5% of use cases, while the remaining 95% benefit from the traditional PHP setup with plugins and themes. #### Performance Considerations - **CSS and Performance**: Discussed performance issues with CSS and the use of Tailwind, emphasizing that both monolithic and headless architectures can achieve high performance. #### Use Cases for Headless WordPress - **Interactive Websites**: More suitable for websites with interactive elements like podcasts or radio shows with a persistent player. ### WordCamp US Stats - **Availability**: Jeff Mankini (@JeffMankini) can provide stats from WordCamp US upon request. ### Supporting Matt and the WordPress Community #### Best Ways to Support Matt - **Speak Your Truth**: Emphasized authenticity in community involvement. - **Financial Support**: Encouraged mindful spending within the WordPress community, supporting contributors and initiatives like Five for the Future. - **Thousand Little Decisions**: Highlighted that support is the result of many individual decisions. #### Community Feedback and Historical Context - **Acknowledgment of Past Issues**: Some participants expressed gratitude to Matt for addressing difficult issues despite discomfort. - **Changes in WP Engine**: Discussed how Silver Lake’s involvement influenced WP Engine's operations and its community impact. #### Complexity of Participation - **Determining Participation**: Discussed the complexity in determining who can use WordPress and how they should participate. ### Licensing and Trademark Concerns #### Current Licensing Structure - **Foundation Holds the License**: The WordPress Foundation holds the license for WordPress, which benefits Automattic and WordPress.org. - **Sub-Licensing**: Automattic can sub-license under foundation rules to allow other companies to participate if they contribute back to the community. #### Suggestions for Improvement - **Commercialization and Swag**: Matt mentioned selling swag, with profits returning to the foundation, as a way to commercialize aspects of WordPress. - **Participation Criteria**: Suggested requiring companies to contribute to Five for the Future to qualify for a license to use the WordPress trademark. ### Community Contributions and Questions #### Participation and Contributions - **Active Participation**: The meeting saw active participation, with attendee numbers reaching up to 350 and later dropping to 207. #### Notable Contributions - **Zach Katz**: Asked a question regarding Matt’s need to issue apologies, reflecting ongoing community concerns. #### Legal and Organizational Input - **Legal Perspective**: Donata, a lawyer, provided insights during the discussion. - **Organizational Dynamics**: Mark rejoined, indicating continued interest and participation from key members. # 📝 Transcript (Continued) ### WordPress Contribution Roles #### Full-Time Contributor Roles - **Dedicated Roles**: Some companies have full-time roles solely dedicated to contributing to WordPress. These positions are highly regarded within the community. #### Team-Based Contributions - **Contribution Choices**: Employees may be hired to work on specific teams, such as product or host teams, which may not directly contribute to WordPress itself. When employees express an interest in contributing: - **Cost Considerations**: Companies must determine whether the employee’s contribution is financially justifiable. - **Value Demonstration**: Employees, especially those with higher salaries, may need to demonstrate the value of their contributions to receive company approval. ### Challenges in Contribution #### Nuances in Contribution Approval - **Employee Experiences**: Employees from companies like WP Engine have reported difficulties getting approval to contribute. - **Past Company Responses**: Different companies have varied responses, with some supporting employees' desire to contribute, while others do not provide sufficient space or resources. ### Five for the Future Initiative - **Focus**: Five for the Future emphasizes contributions to WordPress specifically, without accounting for broader tech stack contributions like JavaScript or PHP. - **Industry-Wide Contribution**: Noted that the entire industry is not adequately supporting the broader tech ecosystem. - **PHP and Other Technologies**: Highlighted a critical need for more contributions to technologies like PHP. #### Importance of Broader Support - **Original Intent**: The intent of Five for the Future is to foster contributions that support the broader tech ecosystem, not just WordPress. - **Example**: Automattic is a significant financial supporter of PHP, showcasing the importance of contributing beyond the immediate WordPress ecosystem. ### Research and Education #### Data and Figures - **Challenges in Research**: It can be difficult to obtain accurate data on contributions, as WordPress is a decentralized community. - **Community Awareness**: General WordPress users, such as plumbers, electricians, or yoga instructors, are often unaware of the dynamics behind community contributions. - **Focus on Education**: There is a need to educate the community about how WordPress and related technologies are funded and maintained. #### Self-Reported Contributions - **Five for the Future Page**: Contributions listed on the Five for the Future page are self-reported, lacking thorough auditing processes. - **Unlisted Contributions**: Thousands of contributors are not listed on the page despite significant contributions. - **Example**: John Brown has been contributing several hours a week for 18 years without being officially listed. #### Acknowledgment of Contributors - **Recognition**: Highlighted the need to properly recognize all contributors, even those not visible in formal records. ### Community Engagement and Challenges #### Recognizing Diverse Contributions - **Legible vs. Non-Legible Contributions**: Discussion centered around recognizing contributions that are not as visible or easily measured but still significantly benefit the community. - **Broadest Definition of Contribution**: Contributions can include everything from code to helping a colleague understand WordPress better. #### Sponsorship vs. Direct Contributions - **Direct vs. Indirect**: Debate over whether it is more effective for large companies to sponsor contributors directly or to fund projects that help WordPress. - **Community Sentiment**: Many community members prefer contributions to be as direct and beneficial to the commons as possible. ### Litigation Context and Impact #### Current Situation - **Active Litigation**: The legal dispute between WP Engine, Matt Mullenweg, and Automattic was a prominent discussion point. - **Community's Response**: Concerns about whether these public disputes are fragmenting the community and discouraging new developers. - **Transparency Issues**: Community members emphasized the need for transparency to ensure the community feels informed about ongoing issues. #### Trademark Agreement Specifics - **Seeking Clarification**: Questions from attendees clarified the exact requirements for using the WordPress trademark. - **Example**: The use of WordPress for branding purposes needs specific agreements that may involve financial or non-financial commitments. #### Encouraging Dispute Resolution - **Public vs. Private Solutions**: Many attendees expressed a preference for resolving disputes privately rather than making them public issues that could damage the community's unity. - **Community Unity as a Priority**: Despite differing opinions, there was consensus on the importance of keeping the community unified and focused on growth. ### WP Engine and Community Perception #### Background on WP Engine's Role - **WP Engine's Contributions**: WP Engine contributes to WordPress by sponsoring contributors, but the scale of their contribution was seen as disproportionate to their revenue. - **ACF and Local WP**: WP Engine acquired tools like Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) and Local WP, both of which are heavily utilized within the WordPress community. #### Matt’s Perspective on WP Engine - **Conflict with Silver Lake**: Matt expressed frustration with WP Engine’s actions following the acquisition by Silver Lake. - **Public Comments and Apology**: Matt acknowledged that his comments about WP Engine were harsh but emphasized his desire to protect WordPress from companies not contributing adequately back to the community. ### Matt’s Closing Remarks #### Protecting Open Source Values - **Commitment to Open Source**: Matt reiterated his lifelong commitment to the values of open source, explaining that it is his legacy. - **Importance of Community Standards**: He called on the community to continue holding him and Automattic to high standards of transparency and accountability. #### Vision for the Future - **Stronger Community**: Despite the current turmoil, Matt expressed hope that the community would ultimately emerge stronger and more united. - **Encouragement for Contributions**: He encouraged every member of the community, regardless of their resources, to contribute in any way they could to keep the spirit of WordPress alive. ### Q&A and Community Discussion #### Contributions and Participation - **Individual Contributions**: Questions were raised about how contributions are measured and the visibility of these contributions on platforms like the Five for the Future page. - **Community-Driven Solutions**: Matt advocated for a community-driven approach to solve the contribution gaps, emphasizing the importance of self-reported and verifiable contributions. #### Legal and Organizational Concerns - **Trademark Confusion**: Attendees voiced concerns regarding brand confusion between WP Engine and WordPress. Matt responded by explaining the legal standards for brand confusion and the steps Automattic has taken. - **Use of the Trademark**: There was discussion on whether it was acceptable for companies to use the WordPress trademark for marketing, and what agreements were needed to do so appropriately. #### The Way Forward - **Focus on Dialogue**: Matt emphasized the importance of continued open communication between all members of the WordPress community, even during times of dispute. - **Building Bridges**: He called for building bridges between differing viewpoints to ensure the community remains cohesive and focused on the mission of democratizing publishing. ### Wrapping Up #### Community Contributions and Encouragement - **Recognition for All**: The meeting concluded with a call to recognize everyone contributing to the WordPress project, from developers to community supporters, regardless of the visibility of their contributions. - **Strengthening Community Bonds**: The attendees acknowledged the need to work collectively to resolve disputes and strengthen the bonds within the community, ensuring WordPress's continued growth and success. #### Final Thoughts from Attendees - **Open Source Resilience**: Many participants reiterated their belief in the resilience of open source and the WordPress community's ability to navigate challenges together. - **Moving Forward Together**: There was general optimism about the future, with attendees expressing their commitment to contributing and fostering a positive environment for both new and existing community members. --- # 📌 Notes - **Date**: September 23, 2024 - **Host**: Tia Wood (WP Girls) - **Co-Host**: Andrew Palmer (Somebody’s Hero) - **Main Topic**: Discussion on WordPress community, WP Engine, contributions, and trademark issues. - **Key Issues Discussed**: - **Matt Mullenweg’s Comments**: Controversial statements regarding WP Engine and community reactions. - **5 for the Future Initiative**: Contribution metrics and philosophy. - **Legal Disputes**: Trademark confusion, Silver Lake’s influence, and legal ramifications. - **Community Unity**: The need for constructive, private handling of disputes. - **Trademark Usage and Licensing**: Proper use of WordPress branding and trademark agreements. --- # 🗺️ Mindmap - **Community Reactions**: - Mixed responses to Matt Mullenweg's comments about WP Engine. - Concerns over community unity and public statements causing fragmentation. - **Trademark and Legal Issues**: - Trademark confusion between WP Engine and WordPress. - Legal actions, including cease and desist letters filed by both sides. - Impact of Silver Lake’s ownership of WP Engine on community dynamics. - **Five for the Future Initiative**: - Discussion on contribution guidelines and self-reporting. - Debate over the fairness of contribution expectations from high-revenue companies. - **WordPress Foundation and Trademark Control**: - Structure of the WordPress Foundation and its control over trademarks. - Licensing agreements for use of the WordPress name. - **Future Community Steps**: - Emphasis on private resolution of disputes to maintain community harmony. - Encouragement of diverse types of contributions. - Recognition for contributions, both visible and non-visible, to foster inclusiveness. ## Links - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/BDFL Litigation Necessarily Implicates Personal Corporate and Foundation Roles Because the BDFL Has Concentrated Them]] — because evidence-for: this is contemporaneous community discussion from September 2024, before the structure of the dispute was widely understood. Primary material for that note's claim. - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Trademarking a Commons's Descriptive Terms Converts a Steward Into a Gatekeeper]] — because evidence-for: the trademark and branding concerns raised in this session are the community-side view of that mechanism. - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/An Intent-to-Use Filing Gives a Steward Silent Priority Over the Commons It Stewards]] — because extends: the same instrument seen from the receiving end. - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Trust Erosion in Concentrated Systems Is Slow to Build and Fast to Manifest]] — because evidence-for: a real-time record of the fast-manifest phase. - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/A Project Is the Community Not the Code]] — because applies-in: the session's recurring concern is community unity rather than any technical question. - [[Open Source Governance MOC]] — because applies-in. ## Needs human eyes **Misfiled by type.** This is a 410-line raw Plaud meeting transcript, not a Permanent note — there is no single atomic claim, and it should probably live under a sources or transcripts folder rather than in `3. Resources/Permanent Notes/`. I set `type: reference` and wired it into the trademark cluster rather than moving it, because relocating a file breaks any existing links and that is Courtney's call. Speaker attributions in the transcript are partial ("Andrew and another participant"), so quote with care.