I was sitting about 40 rows back when Matt Mullenweg took the stage at WordCamp 2024. He told us about his background in macroeconomics and then proceeded to read WordCamp US and Ecosystem Thinking as jazz music played in the background.
This wasn’t my first WordCamp, but I legitimately felt bad for first-timers. Imagine an awesome and uplifting week ending like the Payback scene in The Sum of All Fears:
A little awkward.
Leading up to this WordCamp, I had thought a lot about WordPress, open source, funding, and contributors. I’ve also discussed these topics relentlessly with WordPress users, contributors, and outsiders.
Matt’s “talk” triggered perhaps the most interesting insight of all, though. In his attacks on WP Engine, he referred to an economics concept called “Tragedy of the Commons.”
His argument was essentially this: If companies like WP Engine don’t “give back,” the commons are destined for ruin. WordPress is, of course, the commons in this metaphor.
There shouldn’t be any surface-level pushback to this concept. The Tragedy of the Commons is a classic economics lesson because it has played out time and time again across the globe.
So, Matt is technically right. If WordPress is “the commons,” and people don’t willingly contribute to pruning and developing it, then it’s destined for ruin.
The problem is that Matt is putting a massively important project, and our future, in the hands of a historically failed model.
Some of the smartest minds in economics have arrived at another obvious conclusion when tackling the Tragedy of the Commons problem: owned land is better cared for than public land because it benefits the private owner to protect and care for it.
It’s pretty simple, really. Unmitigated self-interest is often harmful, right? So why buy into a concept like “the commons” which actively promotes and encourages unmitigated self-interest?
Private ownership is the very thing that mitigates self-interest. If you’re worried about the commons trending toward ruin, you should buy it, protect it, and maintain it. That’s the real lesson of Tragedy of the Commons. The lesson isn’t, “If you’re worried about the commons trending toward ruin, beg people to help and threaten them if they don’t.”
WordPress isn’t as complicated as people make it seem. Software needs developers. Some developers are willing to donate their time and some developers are only willing to trade time for money. If you want consistency and efficiency, which I think we all do since we rely so heavily on the project, you need the money part.
The question is: can “owned” software still be open source?
It’s a simple answer. “Yes.”
Open source software can be owned and controlled by a single entity. Or, it can be community-driven. WordPress is awkwardly kind of both.
Automattic heavily controls WordPress, but doesn’t own it. Automattic makes money, but has opted to not monetize WordPress itself. Automattic is the main contributor, but there are community contributors as well.
To be clear, you can monetize WordPress without charging for its use. It can be free, open source, and protected from the fate of the commons without giving up any of its current advantages.
What people need to understand and accept is that the problems WordPress faces are self-inflicted. While these problems and complications are blamed on “the nature of open source software,” they’re really just the obvious result of all the decisions made up to this point.
If Matt is going to suggest WordPress is “the commons,” then he has to accept the reality that the commons is usually abused. WP Engine is under no moral or legal obligation to contribute back to the project and certainly not in any specific way.
If we want companies like WP Engine to contribute developer hours via Five for the Future, we have to find ways to convince them to do that. Why? Because that was the chosen model. Instead of ensuring consistent funding that doesn’t rely on pure altruism, it was decided that WordPress would survive or die based on the passing of a collection plate.
Matt has presumably attempted diplomacy multiple times in different ways over the years as he passed that collection plate around, but without great success when it comes to WP Engine.
The question now becomes, is public ridicule and shame a valid approach? And should this ridicule and shame get delivered in the closing talk at a WordCamp?
It’s certainly not immoral or unethical, so one has to decide if it’s desirable. At the end of the day, this is all personal preference and everyone will have their own preferences.
What’s my preference, you ask?
My preference is to avoid the problem in the first place. When you avoid using an undesirable model, you naturally avoid the undesirable consequences. A seemingly vindictive founder slicing and dicing one of his competitors at WordCamp US, to the rhythm of Wish, is one of those consequences.
So, I simply reject the historically failed concept of the commons and I recognize that something as valuable as WordPress should be driven by a proper funding model, a proper visionary, a consistent core development team, and consistent marketing.
What’s happening in WordPress right now is the sum of all our fears. What’s worse is that we opted into it. WordPress’ open source nature and the benefits of free use, data ownership, and data liberation don’t have to go away for the glaring problems to go away.
The next era of development in WordPress is being ushered in as we speak. Maybe Era 4 should also be the era where we usher in a properly funded and managed WordPress altogether.
29 comments
Mark Dut
What will you do if Matt decides you need to share 8% of your profits with Frames ACSS & Etch or he will block your updates and probably steal your software and rename it?
Kevin Geary
That’s not a possibility because ACSS and Frames aren’t in the plugin repo.
Daniel Tarbuck
It’s all such a shame. I’ve seen a few reviews of the ‘talk’ from those who were there, and I appreciate how clearly you’ve laid everything out. I’m a firm believer that the current model is flawed.
As you’ve mentioned before, you paid around $200 to Thomas for bricks, made a significant profit for your agency, and yet WP received nothing in return—because they didn’t ask for anything! That’s the reality of open source—it’s a brilliant concept, but it comes with its own set of challenges.
We all love WP for its open-source nature, but it still requires constant development, along with substantial cloud storage and data transfer to name just a couple of things, all of which cost a significant amount of money.
I think it’s time the WP Foundation, WordPress.org, or Matt from Automattic clarifies things.
Should small-time developers who profit from WP be asked to contribute a small yearly fee? Should larger agencies, who make significant profits, be asked to donate a small fee and/or time to the core team? On the basis the one of the issues with WPE is the $500 million has been made off WP by them, at what point should a requirement kick in? Perhaps 5-8% of revenue, whether in donations or development time?
Only with a clear system, supported by those who love the project and are willing to give back, can we create a more sustainable future for WP.
However this plays out, it feels like we’re at a crossroads. Right now, it seems we’re heading in a direction that doesn’t prioritize the long-term improvement of the project, which will only lead to more challenges when working with the platform.
Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback on this. Hopefully, we’ll see some clarity soon!
Faton
Unfortunately, this is anything but standing for the freedom of open source, even though you claim to support open source.
Matthew Mullenweg loses my sympathy with such actions.
Kevin have you ever thought about teaming up with Thomas Ehrig to fork WordPress? Bricks Builder + the vision of Etch would then form the basis of the WordPress fork. Gutenberg would be removed.
https://x.com/ryancduff/status/1839046910197239992?s=46
Jan Wessels
Any special reason why you did not get involved in the Q&A session with Matt? As an WordPress entrepreneur with lot’s of outspoken critiques on YT on the development of WordPress and the way it is going now I was somehow surprised to not see you engaging there.
Tyree Brown
No way they got the Kevin Geary sitting “40 rows back” 😤😂. Joking, but I appreciate the write up
Kevin Geary
I chose to. I’m a “back of the class” kinda kid.
Josh McAdams
Six comments. One argument. One naked insult. Two communists or whatever (my grandfather, father, myself and my sons call them commies) telling us how the premise of the articles is wrong because of their Reddit reasoning.
Welcome to the commons. Let’s see how common this **** can get.
Robert Scheidl
Communism is not the opposite of neoliberalism. The world is not just black and white. If, for example, the common good or sustainability are prioritised over profit, then you can call that ‘Christian’ too. But that doesn’t mean that Christianity is the opposite of neoliberalism. Theoretically perhaps, but unfortunately the relationship between theory and practice is just as complicated in Christianity as it is with Marx and all those who refer to him. And family traditions … a very difficult subject 😉
Josh McAdams
Neoliberalism is a cancer of the entire planet and human race, we certainly have common ground there, but the answer isn’t… what this is.
I realize that communism not the opposite of Neoliberalism, thus the grandfather, father, etc tongue-in-cheek caveat. But it’s a good enough shorthand for whatever this is.
I’ve used WP for 15 years and never heard the term “democratize publishing” until a few days ago. IMO, these people have lost the plot.
It’s a tool, not a movement and to try on imbue a CMS with such self-importance at this later hour (will there be websites in 2 years that humans actually visits?) seem myopic in the extreme.
I was in support of WP Man’s insane moves because it’s entertaining and there is a lack of this kind of ride-or-die mentality in everything these days. Until I heard him speak this morning. He’s not crazy, he’s not a revolutionary, he’s a just hot-house flower that talks about how Reddit karma lends veracity to his claims and how he just didn’t get enough sleep last night so he can’t really answer this specific question.
This is a bubbled-wrapped soul that is about to learn how the real world works. Let’s hope he makes it through with enough upvotes.
Robert Scheidl
Relying on the development of Gutenberg, for example, instead of focussing on develeopment of the core value “content management” has nothing to do with the advantages or disadvantages of Open Source.
And not to forget: private owners can also back the wrong horse.
Aarón Blanco Tejedor
You base your entire argument on a possibly false premise: “Some of the smartest minds in economics have arrived at another obvious conclusion when tackling the Tragedy of the Commons problem: owned land is better cared for than public land because it benefits the private owner to protect and care for it.”
You don’t provide any citations, and this is clearly not true in many scenarios. A lot of privately owned land is horribly abused and mismanaged, while a lot of public and common land is really well managed.
https://books.google.fi/books/about/Governing_the_Commons.html?id=hHGgCgAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y
I can’t speak to how your interpretation of the tragedy of the commons applies to the WordPress project because I don’t know, but to build your entire article on a false premise, or at least a partially false premise, is not a solid foundation for any argument.
Robert Scheidl
Both statements give me hope that there are still sensible people out there who don’t just read the headlines. The Tragedy of Commons is neoliberal propaganda. I am thinking, for example, of the resources water or oil, where millions of Africans could just as well speak of a Tragedy of Supply and Demand.
Kevin Geary
Please provide an example of a true “commons.”
Robert Scheidl
I live in Vienna, Austria, a large city that has been supplied with water from the mountains by two water pipes for over 150 years. These springs in the mountains once belonged to the monarchy, today they are in public hands, also the water infrastructure.
In 2019, the National Council decided to secure the public water supply under constitutional law. And all political parties, left and right, agreed. (And incidentally for Josh, the Communist Party is not in Austrian parliament. Since 2018, the conservative party has governed in various coalitions).
Why was this anchored in the constitution? Because privatization in the 1980s and 90s led to declining water quality and immensely rising fees in many countries. As a result, a worldwide process of remunicipalization began in the 2000s.
Another example is the “Mietshäuser Syndikat” in Germany, a cooperative and non-commercially organized company for the joint acquisition of houses, which are afterwards transferred to collective ownership.
Or the “WOZ”, for example, a Swiss weekly newspaper with around 40 full-time employees, employed by an organization that they also own. Equal pay applies throughout the company. This means that everyone earns around $ 7200 gross per month. The turnover of the entire company is around 6 million dollars.
Or what about Linux? Wikipedia? Or the Document Foundation with Libre Office? Or TYPO3, an enterprise CMS that had a large market share, especially in Europe. I ran a Web Agency in the early 2000s, specialized in big TYPO3 projects. Today TYPO3 is a dinosaur, but that has less to do with OpenSource than with changed requirements that the basic framework can’t fulfill.
I know, now you’ll say, but no, when the government comes into play it’s not commons and cooperatives aren’t commons either. Or you can’t make money with Libre. Or what is 6 million dollars. I think Steven’ comment said a lot about that.
But in a way you’re also right, because the author who rehashed this theory of the “Tragedy of Commons” in the 1970s meant “unregulated commons”. Okay, but that is very abstract and lumping the overfishing of the oceans and the problems of WordPress together is not a successful rhetorical trick. But the opinion that commons is a historically failed project is a weak “commonplace”, just like “everything is the fault of capitalism”.
Steven Palmer
Yep, it’s a shame since Kevin did go onto make some valid points, but the idea that shared resources are inevitably doomed to overuse and depletion unless controlled by private ownership aligns with neoliberal emphasis on market-based solutions and reducing government intervention. By portraying the commons as inherently inefficient and unsustainable, it justifies the transfer of public assets and resources into private hands. It’s basically market-based propaganda, and Kevin being a great marketer is susceptible to this.
* feel free to delete this comment when the record is corrected.
Kevin Geary
Government owned and controlled land is no longer “commons.”
Faton
As a supplementary comment, for people who want to delve deeper into this topic.
However, I would like to add that it is somewhat difficult to transfer what is being talked about here to virtual things, because virtual things are not a “ limited resource” – you can multiply them as often as you like without taking anything away from anyone.
https://mises.org/online-book/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/5-binary-intervention-government-expenditures/4-myth-public-ownership
Steven Palmer
The question of ‘who’ owns a resource? is a moral approach which can block understanding, since ownership is not a defining feature of a commons. Rather than ownership, it’s about stewardship or ‘how’ a resource the managed and governed. So commons-based approaches can exist within a framework of an external authority who ultimately has control, providing there’s a high level of community participation and sustainable practices. This often involves devolution of power to local communities for co-managment and decision-making, making the resource fully accessible to a defined community, and in effect, “owned” and controlled by that community. This seldom happens when resources are privatized in the spirit of self-interest and profit, quite the opposite, but I understand that open source venture capitalists seek to change this by de-emphasizing the profit part in favour of sustainability.
Robert Scheidl
Thank you, Aarón. Your statement gives me hope that there are still sensible people out there who don’t just read the headlines of articles or books.
The “Tragedy of Commons” is neoliberal propaganda. I am thinking, for example, of the resources “water” or “oil”, where millions of Africans could just as well speak of a “Tragedy of supply and demand”.
Rich Hawkins
Yeah, the “private land is better than the commons” is an extremely well-documented Western politico-economic myth that is quite literally destroying the planet… so I’ll pass on this analysis, thx.
Kevin Geary
There’s no “myth” about it. What you probably refer to as “public land” is actually owned and maintained by a government. That’s not a “commons” in the Tragedy of Commons.
Josh McAdams
Two comments. One arguement. This is the commons,
Matt
Yeah, I really wish we could have avoided all of that. Trust me.
Damian Saunders
Throwing thousands of end users under the bus as collateral damage isn’t doing you any favors…
David
Ya, if only you could have avoided going up on stage bashing and trying to shame someone because you don’t think they’ve contributed enough. What a shame that someone forced you to behave that way. I wonder who that “someone” is? LOL
Leo Koo
Sigh. Thanks for trying, Matt.
Gregg Davis
I think it’s you who could have avoided it. I feel bad because I love WordPress and I use it as the core software of my own business, a one-man operation. But I now have a sour taste because of what you’ve done. If you really needed to voice it, you should have done it privately. Yuck.
David
Gregg, “one-man operation”? Who cares what software you are using anyway?