Has the ClassicPress fork of WordPress taken a wrong turn?

ClassicPress has recently been making headlines within the WordPress community – it’s a fork of WordPress which doesn’t include Gutenberg. Personally, I didn’t get it – you can just as easily install the standard WordPress Core and use the Classic Editor plugin to turn Gutenberg off.

But I have nothing against forks, per se, as Gary Pendergast (Pento) recently wrote, they are a much needed thing within the open source community. However, Pento put it succinctly when he said…

ClassicPress has styled itself as a protest against Gutenberg

However, recent proposals for ClassicPress now make me wonder what their aim really was and whether they’ve made a turn for the worst.

Disclaimer: I work for Automattic but the views above are my own, based on being a WordPress Core contributor, developer and user for over 10 years.

Let me explain… ClassicPress have announced that removal of Gutenberg from WordPress is going to be Phase 1. But Phase 2 is going to be further change and, looking at their list, it does look like their priority is removing features that some people don’t like…

  • Remove the “Hello Dolly” plugin
  • Remove the Akismet plugin
  • Remove Emojis
  • Remove XML-RPC specification
  • Disable Gravatar by default

It just feels like an angry mob of people not liking change.

Let’s not forget, that they are going to be relying on the resources of the Core WordPress team, for example the security team, to ensure WordPress is maintained – they then need to merge those changes into their fork, which leads to delays to security updates and bug fixes to those relying on ClassicPress. The more changes they make to their fork, the harder this will be and the more delayed any update will become.

And changes aren’t just for PHP – their list of proposed ClassicPress “features” include more than just removing or switching things off. And some of these are likely to cause all sorts of problems.

This includes changes to the REST API, moving menus about and added support for additional database systems. As a developer, it’s a potential nightmare – I certainly have no intention for my plugins to support multiple forks but if I use the REST API, for example, that may be required for it to work with ClassicPress. A fork is one thing, but this is actually fracturing WordPress into different products. I hope they’ll have the support resources in place for dealing with the inevitable issues this will cause.

But some of these proposals just aren’t particularly well thought out either – the removal of XML-RPC, for example. I wonder if they fully appreciate what the consequence of this would be – right now, they seem to think it will just affect Jetpack.

I did, at least, get their initial intention – WordPress without Gutenberg. Now, though, they seem to be moving towards their own version of WordPress, viewed through the eyes of a small number of people. And those signing up for ClassicPress may not realise it is more than just a Gutenbergless WordPress. For those considering it, I would ask that you think carefully before committing.

To quote Pento’s final line…

I hope they’ll find their voice for something, instead of just against something.

Sadly, it doesn’t feel like this. Although they have found a voice, it’s more of being ‘against’ things.

What many fail to realise is that all of these decisions made about Core, whether it’s which minimum version of PHP to use or what to do with the REST API, is made by a large number of volunteers, with much discussion and insight. If the final outcome is not what you, ideally, wanted then you should feel pretty comfortable that it was, at least, for good reason. Core decisions are not made by a small number of people using a poll. I know which version I would prefer, even if the final outcome is not my personal preference.


Discover more from artiss.blog

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Comments

5 responses to “Has the ClassicPress fork of WordPress taken a wrong turn?”

  1. Scott Bowler avatar

    I wish you had reached out to me before writing this article – there are a number of inaccuracies, fundamental misunderstandings and straw-man points written here. This is in part our fault for not having enough information on our website, and it’s something I’m working to address as quickly as possible.

    RE: misunderstandings. For example, you write about “their list” when referring to our public suggestion site. This isn’t “our list” – these are suggestions made by the general public. Anyone, yourself included, can go and make a suggestion there. If a suggestion gains enough support it will be opened to a community vote.

    RE: inaccuracies: For example, you write that we will be relying on WordPress resources for security updates. Not true – we have our own security team who are looking to address issues that have been raised privately. Of course, we will be keeping up to date with other patches and bug fixes, it would be odd note to on an opensource fork.

    It’s sad to see this article, and I hope others will dig a bit deeper under the surface to discover the truth behind this project. In the meantime, we’ll keep working hard to make ClassicPress a truly democratic fork of WordPress.

    1. David Artiss avatar

      Thanks for reaching out Scott.

      I didn’t contact you first as this was my own view, written on a personal blog. If this was for more serious journalistic endeavours, I would certainly have contacted you first.

  2. David Artiss avatar

    Hi Phil,

    I do fully support the idea of forking WordPress but I felt that this was a clumsy attempt to do so. However, this was written over a year ago, so things may have changed since then – as you say, I may revisit one day.

    However, a blog is a living documentation – it’s timestamped and reflects views of that time. Will I revisit? It’s unlikely as I received abuse from various people at the time and even turned off commenting on this post for a while, as a result.

    As an Automattician our creed is to embrace open source in all its ways but equally we acknowledge how important communication and free-speech is – ClassicPress is not a competitor to WordPress.com, so there is no conflict of interest here and, as I mentioned in the opening of my post, I fully support forks of WordPress.

  3. Just no avatar
    Just no

    I stumbled across this looking for WordPress forks and alternatives.

    All I can say is, this post made me more convinced than ever that automattic has some really vicious people behind the curtain. Do you really think this is a good look on either of you? Because it isn’t.

    1. David Artiss avatar

      Hi,

      Thanks for bringing that post to my attention – the reality is that it was written quite some time ago and ClassicPress went a different direction, which is why that post isn’t relevant in this case.

      Like Matt, I fully support the forking of WordPress, and is one of the fundamental freedoms that open source gives you (I’ve done the same with plugins myself). My post, though, was attempting to highlight the issues that I saw in how they were doing it. If i was against their project, I’d have left them to it and said nothing. I just didn’t see the direction they were going in as the way to succeed. At the time ClassicPress was really just “WordPress without Gutenberg”, which you can could easily achieve with the Classic Editor plugin – it needed to be more than just a simple protest, but I thought it was going to do the wrong thing.

      No viciousness in that post at all, and nothing to do with my work at Automattic. I’ve already signed up for newsletters from the newly announced fork and I will track its progress – I really do hope it goes well.

      Peace and love life,
      David.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.