My Strange Experiences With Automattic: Part 3  [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/My Strange Experiences With Automattic Part 3|Full Document Contents]] ## Document Notes --- tags: #WordPress #Automattic #OpenSource - #WordPress - #Automattic - #OpenSource Author: Alda Vigdis Skarphedinsdottir Source: [Alda Vigdis's Blog](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) Reference: [My Strange Experiences with Automattic (Part 3)](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) date created: 2024-10-01 15:20 --- # Title: My Strange Experiences with Automattic (Part 3) ## Table of Contents:  - [[#📝 Summary:]] - [[#📖 Main Content:]] - [[#🗒️ Notes:]] - [[#📖 References:]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase:]] - [[#📰 Newsletter:]] - [[#✅ Action Items:]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses:]] - [[#📊 Methodology:]] - [[#❓ Questions:]] - [[#🔮 Future Research:]] - [[#💡 Implications:]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment:]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment:]] - [[#🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment:]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🔍 SEO Evaluation]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### References: - [Alda Vigdis's Blog Post](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) ## 📝 Summary: In this third part of Alda Vigdis's series, she discusses her ongoing issues with Automattic and the leadership of Matt Mullenweg. The article critiques the management, internal culture, and decision-making at Automattic, highlighting the dissonance between their public-facing commitment to open-source values and their behind-the-scenes operations. Alda reflects on personal and professional experiences working with Automattic and how these issues threaten the integrity of the WordPress community. ## 📖 Main Content: Alda emphasizes the disconnection between Automattic’s leadership, particularly Matt Mullenweg, and the broader WordPress community. She explores how decisions are made in isolation, often disregarding community contributions and violating the core principles of open source. Alda expresses frustration with Automattic's opaque handling of intellectual property, the exclusionary nature of governance, and the increasing dominance of Automattic staff in volunteer roles that should be independent. ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Transparency Issues**: - Leadership often makes decisions without community involvement. - Automattic controls key WordPress resources, creating conflicts of interest. - **Leadership Dominance**: - Matt Mullenweg's influence over WordPress Foundation and Automattic blurs the lines between for-profit and non-profit goals. - Leadership’s disregard for contributor voices leads to a fractured community. - **Community Impact**: - Contributors feel alienated and unappreciated. - WordPress governance and processes are influenced heavily by Automattic’s needs rather than community or foundation goals. ## 📖 References: - [Alda Vigdis's Blog Post](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. **Original**: "The leadership's public statements about valuing openness and inclusivity feel hollow when their actions consistently exclude contributors from the conversation." - **Paraphrased**: Despite leadership's claims of promoting openness and inclusivity, their actions frequently exclude important contributors from discussions. 2. **Original**: "Matt's grasp over WordPress.org and the WordPress Foundation, alongside his control of Automattic, creates an unhealthy concentration of power in the ecosystem." - **Paraphrased**: Matt Mullenweg's control over both WordPress.org and the Foundation, combined with his leadership of Automattic, results in a troubling centralization of influence within the WordPress space. ## 📰 Newsletter: 🚀 **Automattic's Leadership Controversy** Alda Vigdis’s latest blog post digs into the increasing dominance of Matt Mullenweg and Automattic in WordPress governance. She sheds light on decision-making processes that sideline community members and calls for greater transparency. This is a must-read for anyone passionate about open-source principles and the future of WordPress. [Read more here](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/). ## ✅ Action Items: - **Advocacy for Open Source**: This article supports the ongoing discussion about improving transparency in open-source governance. - **Contributor Support**: Focus on how we can better engage and retain contributors in the WordPress project despite leadership challenges. - **Transparency Goals**: Align content with efforts to make WordPress leadership and decision-making more transparent and community-driven, a key focus in my role as Developer Advocate and open-source advocate. ## 🧪 Hypotheses: 1. Greater transparency and inclusion in decision-making could lead to increased community engagement and satisfaction. 2. Automattic’s dominance in WordPress governance may be causing the decline of independent contributor participation. ### 📊 Methodology: - **Survey**: Distribute surveys to current WordPress contributors to gather data on satisfaction levels and perceived transparency. - **Case Studies**: Analyze successful community-driven projects for potential governance structures WordPress could adopt. ### ❓ Questions: - How can WordPress's governance structure be revised to increase contributor participation? - What would a more inclusive and transparent leadership model look like for WordPress? ### 🔮 Future Research: - Investigate the impact of corporate influence on other open-source projects to identify potential solutions for WordPress. - Study alternative governance models for open-source communities. ### 💡 Implications:  Future research could pave the way for a new governance model for WordPress, potentially enhancing transparency, reducing centralization, and boosting community trust. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: 1. **Visual Learners (Spatial)**: - **Present**: The article is purely text-based. - **Improve**: Add flowcharts or visual breakdowns of Automattic's influence on WordPress governance. 2. **Aural Learners (Auditory-Musical)**: - **Present**: No auditory content. - **Improve**: Add an accompanying podcast or audio version of the article. 3. **Verbal Learners (Linguistic)**: - **Present**: Rich in narrative and verbal arguments. - **Improve**: Add links to other articles or further reading materials for deeper exploration. 4. **Physical Learners (Kinesthetic)**: - **Present**: No actionable tasks. - **Improve**: Include a call to action, such as encouraging readers to join WordPress discussions or contribute to open-source projects. 5. **Logical Learners (Mathematical)**: - **Present**: Logical progression of arguments is strong. - **Improve**: Include statistics or case studies to back up claims about governance issues. 6. **Social Learners (Interpersonal)**: - **Present**: Community issues discussed, but lacks interaction. - **Improve**: Encourage reader discussion or link to forums for further conversation. 7. **Solitary Learners (Intrapersonal)**: - **Present**: The reflective tone engages solitary learners. - **Improve**: Include journaling prompts or reflection questions. 8. **Naturalistic Learners**: - **Present**: No reference to nature or sustainability. - **Improve**: Use natural analogies to explain governance structures and ecosystems. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Screen Reader Compatibility**: Proper HTML semantics needed. - **Improve**: Ensure alt-text is added to images and all headers are properly structured. - **Keyboard Navigation**: No specific issues, but should be tested. - **Improve**: Ensure all interactive elements are fully keyboard accessible. - **Contrast and Readability**: Text is legible. - **Improve**: Optimize font size for better readability on mobile devices. ### 🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: The article discusses inclusio > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [#WordPress, #Automattic, #OpenSource] > - #WordPress > - #Automattic > - #OpenSource > Author: Alda Vigdis Skarphedinsdottir > Source: [Alda Vigdis's Blog](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) > Reference: [My Strange Experiences with Automattic (Part 3)](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) > date created: 2024-10-01 15:20 > > # Title: My Strange Experiences with Automattic (Part 3) > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### References: - [Alda Vigdis's Blog Post](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) ## 📝 Summary: In this third part of Alda Vigdis's series, she discusses her ongoing issues with Automattic and the leadership of Matt Mullenweg. The article critiques the management, internal culture, and decision-making at Automattic, highlighting the dissonance between their public-facing commitment to open-source values and their behind-the-scenes operations. Alda reflects on personal and professional experiences working with Automattic and how these issues threaten the integrity of the WordPress community. ## 📖 Main Content: Alda emphasizes the disconnection between Automattic’s leadership, particularly Matt Mullenweg, and the broader WordPress community. She explores how decisions are made in isolation, often disregarding community contributions and violating the core principles of open source. Alda expresses frustration with Automattic's opaque handling of intellectual property, the exclusionary nature of governance, and the increasing dominance of Automattic staff in volunteer roles that should be independent. ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Transparency Issues**: - Leadership often makes decisions without community involvement. - Automattic controls key WordPress resources, creating conflicts of interest. - **Leadership Dominance**: - Matt Mullenweg's influence over WordPress Foundation and Automattic blurs the lines between for-profit and non-profit goals. - Leadership’s disregard for contributor voices leads to a fractured community. - **Community Impact**: - Contributors feel alienated and unappreciated. - WordPress governance and processes are influenced heavily by Automattic’s needs rather than community or foundation goals. ## 📖 References: - [Alda Vigdis's Blog Post](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. **Original**: "The leadership's public statements about valuing openness and inclusivity feel hollow when their actions consistently exclude contributors from the conversation." - **Paraphrased**: Despite leadership's claims of promoting openness and inclusivity, their actions frequently exclude important contributors from discussions. 2. **Original**: "Matt's grasp over WordPress.org and the WordPress Foundation, alongside his control of Automattic, creates an unhealthy concentration of power in the ecosystem." - **Paraphrased**: Matt Mullenweg's control over both WordPress.org and the Foundation, combined with his leadership of Automattic, results in a troubling centralization of influence within the WordPress space. ## 📰 Newsletter: 🚀 **Automattic's Leadership Controversy** Alda Vigdis’s latest blog post digs into the increasing dominance of Matt Mullenweg and Automattic in WordPress governance. She sheds light on decision-making processes that sideline community members and calls for greater transparency. This is a must-read for anyone passionate about open-source principles and the future of WordPress. [Read more here](https://aldavigdis.dev/2024/09/30/my-strange-experiences-with-automattic-part-3/). ## ✅ Action Items: - **Advocacy for Open Source**: This article supports the ongoing discussion about improving transparency in open-source governance. - **Contributor Support**: Focus on how we can better engage and retain contributors in the WordPress project despite leadership challenges. - **Transparency Goals**: Align content with efforts to make WordPress leadership and decision-making more transparent and community-driven, a key focus in my role as Developer Advocate and open-source advocate. ## 🧪 Hypotheses: 1. Greater transparency and inclusion in decision-making could lead to increased community engagement and satisfaction. 2. Automattic’s dominance in WordPress governance may be causing the decline of independent contributor participation. ### 📊 Methodology: - **Survey**: Distribute surveys to current WordPress contributors to gather data on satisfaction levels and perceived transparency. - **Case Studies**: Analyze successful community-driven projects for potential governance structures WordPress could adopt. ### ❓ Questions: - How can WordPress's governance structure be revised to increase contributor participation? - What would a more inclusive and transparent leadership model look like for WordPress? ### 🔮 Future Research: - Investigate the impact of corporate influence on other open-source projects to identify potential solutions for WordPress. - Study alternative governance models for open-source communities. ### 💡 Implications: Future research could pave the way for a new governance model for WordPress, potentially enhancing transparency, reducing centralization, and boosting community trust. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: 1. **Visual Learners (Spatial)**: - **Present**: The article is purely text-based. - **Improve**: Add flowcharts or visual breakdowns of Automattic's influence on WordPress governance. 2. **Aural Learners (Auditory-Musical)**: - **Present**: No auditory content. - **Improve**: Add an accompanying podcast or audio version of the article. 3. **Verbal Learners (Linguistic)**: - **Present**: Rich in narrative and verbal arguments. - **Improve**: Add links to other articles or further reading materials for deeper exploration. 4. **Physical Learners (Kinesthetic)**: - **Present**: No actionable tasks. - **Improve**: Include a call to action, such as encouraging readers to join WordPress discussions or contribute to open-source projects. 5. **Logical Learners (Mathematical)**: - **Present**: Logical progression of arguments is strong. - **Improve**: Include statistics or case studies to back up claims about governance issues. 6. **Social Learners (Interpersonal)**: - **Present**: Community issues discussed, but lacks interaction. - **Improve**: Encourage reader discussion or link to forums for further conversation. 7. **Solitary Learners (Intrapersonal)**: - **Present**: The reflective tone engages solitary learners. - **Improve**: Include journaling prompts or reflection questions. 8. **Naturalistic Learners**: - **Present**: No reference to nature or sustainability. - **Improve**: Use natural analogies to explain governance structures and ecosystems. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Screen Reader Compatibility**: Proper HTML semantics needed. - **Improve**: Ensure alt-text is added to images and all headers are properly structured. - **Keyboard Navigation**: No specific issues, but should be tested. - **Improve**: Ensure all interactive elements are fully keyboard accessible. - **Contrast and Readability**: Text is legible. - **Improve**: Optimize font size for better readability on mobile devices. ### 🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: The article discusses inclusion but lacks cultural diversity. - **Improve**: Integrate examples of diverse community contributions and perspectives. - **Inclusive Language**: Generally inclusive, but some jargon might alienate non-experts. - **Improve**: Simplify technical terms for broader audience accessibility. - **Neurodiversity Support**: Dense paragraphs may be difficult for some readers. - **Improve**: Break content into smaller sections with clearer headers. - **Representation**: No discussion of gender or racial diversity in leadership. - **Improve**: Mention the importance of diverse representation in WordPress governance. ### ✅ Logical Validity: - **Strength**: The article is based on personal experiences, which gives it authenticity, and the critique is logically structured. - **Weakness**: It lacks third-party evidence to back up claims. - **Improve**: Introduce external statistics or other community testimonials. **Logical Fallacies Noted**: - **Hasty Generalization**: The article generalizes issues without always providing sufficient evidence. - **Improve**: Provide specific examples or data to avoid overgeneralization. ### 🔍 SEO Evaluation: 1. **Keywords**: Effective use of keywords like "WordPress," "Automattic," and "open source." - **Improve**: Add related keywords like "WordPress governance" and "open-source challenges." 2. **Meta Description**: None provided. - **Improve**: Include a concise summary with target keywords. 3. **Title Tag**: The current title is engaging. - **Improve**: Include "WordPress leadership issues" for SEO enhancement. 4. **Headers (H1, H2, H3)**: Good structure, but lacks keyword optimization. - **Improve**: Add keywords in H2 and H3 headers. 5. **Content Length**: Length is adequate. - **Improve**: Ensure all arguments are fully explored. 6. **Internal and External Links**: Lacks sufficient linking. - **Improve**: Add links to related posts or authoritative external sources. 7. **URL Structure**: SEO-friendly. 8. **Image Optimization**: No images used. - **Improve**: Add images with descriptive alt-text. 9. **Mobile Optimization**: Needs testing. - **Improve**: Optimize text size and image loading for mobile. 10. **User Engagement**: No call to action. - **Improve**: Add prompts for comments or sharing. 11. **Schema Markup**: None provided. - **Improve**: Use FAQ or article schema. 12. **Social Sharing**: Lacks sharing buttons. - **Improve**: Add social media sharing options. ## 🎯 Conclusion: Alda Vigdis presents a critical examination of Automattic's leadership and its impact on the WordPress community, highlighting a need for transparency, inclusion, and governance reform to maintain the open-source spirit of WordPress. <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights - This one has taken a while to iron out. I wanted the third post in the series to focus more on the WordPress community and how it has been made to depend on Matt’s leadership at Automattic’s infrastructure. And how that is a very bad thing. This post is best read while listening to [Know Your Enemy by Rage Against the Machine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JukTvlrh-Wk&rco=1). ([There’s a jazzy cover if you are so inclined](https://youtu.be/ubY3RagH1Nw?si=CrD2frRZEP7ZI4Go).) This post will include vague references to events and facts but as this is an opinion piece and not an academic paper, I am not here to use a search engine or find things on the Internet Archive for you. As the community side of things has been shaken with quite serious and course-changing events since I started writing this series of posts, with things dating even further back — most of which would not have happened if it wasn’t for Matt’s lack of leadership — and his main goals being about sinking his claws into the ins-and-outs of the economy around what has become the default general-purpose CMS of the web and his name being plastered around as much as possible. The most recent move is the current attempt at forcing a large hosting company in the WordPress space to pay Automattic a large sum of money for using the WordPress logo and wordmark despite them being owned by the WordPress Foundation. Here are some bullet points of a fraction of what I have picked up on in the past year or so: • Matt seems to treat what happens on WordPress.org to be within his personal domain, while those who contribute generally assume that their contributions are within the WordPress Foundation’s scope • Speaking of domains, Matt owns the related domain names personally, despite the logo and wordmark along with some other intellectual property supposedly being the property of the Foundation • Rules are established for working groups within the WordPress Project, but generally do not apply to Matt and that seems to include harassment towards volunteers • The plugin review process has been in a state of disarray for a while. • The marketing team ended up being dissolved because Matt didn’t want to take responsibilities for his actions • Women seem to be disproportionally exposed to harassment within the scope of their volunteering for the WordPress project The internals of the WordPress project are not designed for anything but Matt’s and Automattic’s needs and requirements. Anything else is deprioritised. Volunteering within the project has in large parts shifted over to Automattic staff and contractors working for Audrey Capital (Matt’s own investment company), with the Block Editor and FSE project being run as if it was an internal project within the company in addition to working groups such as Marketing being largely replaced with a different group of Automattic employees for not pleasing Matt’s whims. In essence, those who do not work for or please Matt Mullenweg have been actively pushed out, while there’s multiple businesses and individuals working on and contributing to the project, let alone those who depend on it in general. This means that it makes little sense to contribute to WordPress by committing code or participating on other aspects at this point in time. What Just Happened Last Week? Matt Mullenweg closed the WordCamp US conference last Sunday by attacking a large competitor in the WordPress space for supposedly not pulling their weight within the open source WordPress project in terms of time or money spent. There was also a lot of nonsensical rambling about his mother being confused, that hosting company not actually providing WordPress hosting because of a minor modification, false prophets and so on during that speech and the related blog post on his site, which had more religious undertones than the speech made by the late leader of Hezbollah the same week. Also that WP Engine was not actually providing WordPress because they were limiting a single resource-heavy feature. As if WordPress.com hasn’t been going even further in providing a limited WordPress experience since the beginning. In short, Matt demanded that WP Engine paid money to Automattic, for using the WordPress logo and wordmark, which is actually owned by the WordPress Foundation. I guess there are more people than Matt’s mother that are confused right now. WP Engine, the hosting company he attempted to steamroll over has been known to support the WordPress community in ways other than poking around in things that are under Matt’s control and stepping on his toes. They were in fact one of the largest sponsors of that conference and maintain some important plugins for WordPress such as Advanced Custom Fields among other things. Matt offered to refund WP Engine their sponsorship money. He has done similar things before, assuming that he can pay himself out of trouble like that — in addition to other WordCamp sponsors angering him over clever advertising in the past. According to an exchange of cease and desist letters that happened shortly after, Matt seemed to have gone as far as threatening them, using text messages up until his closing speech. Anyone who has done any leadership work in volunteering spaces can tell you that you don’t use threats or throw tantrums to get things done within volunteering projects or you’ll end up being ousted or with key people walking out. This seems to be how Matt has gone about things in the past handful of years or even longer, and that is threatening the very existence of the wider WordPress project and the actual community involved. Setting the Record StraightWhy Not a Fork? Some — including Matt himself, despite in his arrogant tone — have suggested forking the WordPress project and ClassicPress has existed for a while, despite having to re-fork the WordPress codebase recently as they were slightly behind on merging code from upstream. On the other hand, previous attempts to fork WordPress have not gone well (and Matt knows that) as the maintenance of a hard WordPress fork would require much more work than most people would assume, lest we forget that the monolithic codebase reflects the organisational structure and hierarchies behind it. There is much more behind the WordPress project than its core codebase and it would be a difficult undertaking to replicate that as well, so a small group of volunteers will never be able to cover everything that needs to be done. I believe that those of us who want to distance themselves the politics of WordPress while also wanting some change may not want to do the same mistake twice or be left with too much to chew on. What could be done here is a project aimed at transforming the codebase into more manageable packages and initiating groups responsible for the maintenance of each. I think the only way to do this while bypassing the current hierarchy is to initiate a consortium with an open membership and a strict, open governance structure that does not stand and fall with a single person or company insisting on being Player 1 all the time. On the other hand, perhaps we just need to start from scratch or move towards something else. Can’t Matt Simply do What He Wants with His Software and His Businesses? Some assume that Matt *owns* WordPress or that he is the sole *owner of Automattic*, which he is isn’t. Here’s the thing — as Matt is not *the Founder of WordPres*, but *one of the co-founders* of the project, lest we forget the hundreds or thousands of people who have contributed to the project for the past 2 decades — The WordPress source code, its documentation and other associated work is as a whole not the private property or within the personal domain of Matt Mullenweg according to the software license the WordPress project has used from the beginning, let alone a general understanding of intellectual property law. I can’t see how Matt’s recent ideas on the rights to use the WordPress logo, the name or the wordmark requiring companies that he doesn’t like to pay up are in compliance with the GPL license. This makes me wonder if this has to do with WP Engine not being a ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01j953fkvgevstgcqsnhqwaa9v))