Storms of WordPress Controversy  🔗 **Source:** [Storms of WordPress Controversy](https://modernearth.net/storms-of-wordpress-controversy/) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: > - #wordpress > - #governance > - #open_source > Author: [James Giroux] > Source: [jamesgiroux.ca](https://jamesgiroux.ca/acf-gets-a-fork-by-wordpress-org/) > Reference: [ACF Gets Forked by WordPress.org] > date created: 2024-10-12 22:45 > > # Title: ACF Gets Forked by WordPress.org: Impact on WordPress Community > <!-- 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 Assessment](#-deib-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-belonging-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary: WordPress.org recently forked the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin, leading to the creation of Secure Custom Fields (SCF). This decision was driven by security concerns and WordPress’s desire to remove the commercial elements present in ACF. WP Engine, which owns ACF, is not happy with this move and has filed a lawsuit, accusing WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg of using trademark law to advance personal agendas. ## 📖 Main Content: Secure Custom Fields was introduced by WordPress.org as a non-commercial, secure alternative to ACF. The key reason for this fork was addressing vulnerabilities in the ACF plugin related to HTML sanitization and removing upsells. The fork has sparked significant controversy in the community, with WP Engine accusing WordPress of strong-arming them into compliance. The incident highlights tensions between community-driven governance and corporate influence. ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Security Concerns**: WordPress forked ACF to address vulnerabilities. - **Commercialization**: SCF is designed to be a free, non-commercial version of ACF. - **Lawsuit**: WP Engine filed a lawsuit against Automattic and Matt Mullenweg over the handling of the fork and related trademark issues. - **Impact on Users**: WordPress.org automatically migrated ACF users to SCF, while WP Engine provides ACF updates separately. ## 📖 References: - [James Giroux on WordPress Fork](https://jamesgiroux.ca/acf-gets-a-fork-by-wordpress-org/) - [WordPress.org](https://wordpress.org/news/2024/10/secure-custom-fields/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. **Original Insight**: WP Engine criticized WordPress for forcing ACF’s fork, stating it disrupted their operations. **Paraphrased**: WP Engine argued that WordPress’s decision to fork ACF disrupted their workflow and was an unnecessary intervention. 2. **Original Insight**: WordPress cited security vulnerabilities in ACF as the main reason for the fork. **Paraphrased**: The driving force behind WordPress’s fork of ACF was the need to address security concerns and better protect user data. ## 📰 Newsletter: **Title**: WordPress Introduces Secure Custom Fields, Forking ACF 🚨 Big changes are happening in the WordPress community! WordPress.org has officially forked the popular ACF plugin, launching Secure Custom Fields (SCF). SCF addresses security vulnerabilities and removes the commercial elements found in ACF. However, this move has sparked controversy, with WP Engine filing a lawsuit. Want to stay informed on the latest? Learn more about SCF and its impact at [WordPress News](https://wordpress.org/news/2024/10/secure-custom-fields/). ## ✅ Action Items: This article is crucial for your ongoing work advocating for open-source governance and contributor transparency. The SCF fork exemplifies the challenges in balancing community ownership with corporate involvement, offering a case study on how governance structures in open source can influence decision-making and contributor engagement. As an aspiring OSPO leader, understanding this dynamic can help shape your approach to managing future projects. ## 🧪 Hypotheses: - Hypothesis 1: Forking a commercial plugin like ACF into a free, open-source tool will strengthen WordPress’s security reputation. - Hypothesis 2: The controversy around the fork may cause divisions in the WordPress community between corporate and open-source advocates. ### 📊 Methodology: - **Data Collection**: Survey WordPress developers and users about their views on the SCF fork. - **Research Design**: Quantitative data through community polls, qualitative interviews with plugin developers. - **Analysis**: Compare SCF adoption rates with those of ACF pre-fork. ### ❓ Questions: - How will the WordPress community react long-term to this forced plugin fork? - Could similar situations arise for other popular commercial plugins in WordPress? ### 🔮 Future Research: - Investigate the long-term effects of plugin forks on community engagement and open-source governance. - Assess how companies like WP Engine adapt to this new paradigm of plugin management in open-source ecosystems. ### 💡 Implications: The SCF fork could set a precedent for how WordPress handles plugins that balance community-driven needs with commercial interests. If successful, this approach may influence governance strategies across other open-source projects. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: 1. **Visual Learners**: Provide flowcharts outlining the differences between ACF and SCF. 2. **Aural Learners**: Include podcast discussions covering the legal and community aspects of the fork. 3. **Logical Learners**: Add a step-by-step breakdown of the security enhancements in SCF. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Screen Reader Compatibility**: Ensure SCF’s documentation and interface are accessible via screen readers. - **Keyboard Navigation**: Optimize plugin UI for users who navigate with keyboards only. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment: - **Inclusive Language**: Encourage transparency in communication between WordPress and WP Engine to foster community inclusivity. - **Representation**: Introduce diverse viewpoints in community discussions to include underrepresented voices in the governance process. ### ✅ Logical Validity: - **Sound Reasoning**: WordPress’s decision to prioritize security over commercialization reflects its open-source mission. - **Potential Fallacy**: Critics may argue that WordPress’s intervention could be seen as leveraging power unfairly, but the justification lies in improving user safety. ### 🔍 SEO Evaluation: 1. **Keywords**: Secure Custom Fields, ACF, WordPress fork, plugin governance. 2. **Meta Description**: A short and concise meta description that emphasizes SCF’s security improvements and the implications for the community. ## 🎯 Conclusion: The SCF fork is a pivotal moment for the WordPress ecosystem, reflecting the challenges of maintaining open-source governance while balancing corporate involvement. As the situation unfolds, it will offer key insights into community-driven decision-making and how future plugin forks may be handled. <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Storms of WordPress Controversy|Storms of WordPress Controversy, Modern Earth]] ## Highlights -  Statue of woman holding scales of justice balancing logos for WordPress and WP Engine ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja1vqq1vc0kzzh7tq8bhf4yj)) - Regardless of how the lawsuit proceeds from here and whatever its outcome may be, the WordPress community will be doing some reflecting and restructuring in the days, weeks, and months ahead. What I expect to come out of it fits generally into four areas: 1. distribution of the software from multiple mirrored sources to remove overall access control from any one of them; 2. greater certainty on the use of the WordPress trademark or discontinuation of its use; 3. one or more “forks” of the project into different branches, each with a new name; and 4. proper governance structures for oversight with meaningful dispute resolution policies in and for each of the above. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja1vyn2n2e36vdef5y36c53q)) - I know many people in the community, whose corporate participants include large agencies, hosts, and large enterprise users who have replaced proprietary or in-house custom software with WordPress. Many of those, like NASA and The New York Times, have a history of sharing software they write or modify, and have the resources to maintain, update, and release new versions, working together or independently. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja1w2h7816mxnhrkse20rm53)) - Mullenweg has harmed his community, but communities tend to rally in times of stress or hardship. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja1w28gamjpbz55yxvwqxr59)) - This is why, based solidly on the [four freedoms of the GPL](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms) and the resilience of the WordPress community, we are not rescinding our recommendation of its use, nor making plans to change. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja1w35m3b2nkbz7m33qsd34p))