Controversies involving Matt Mullenweg and WordPress.
This is not a diagnose. This is my opinion based on the subjects behaviour.
The latest disputes primarily center around conflicts with WP Engine, a prominent managed WordPress hosting company. Here's a summary of the key events:
Thesis vs. WordPress controversy was a big deal back in 2010. It was a legal and philosophical battle between Matt Mullenweg (WordPress/Automattic) and Chris Pearson (developer of the Thesis theme) over GPL licensing.
September 2024: Matt Mullenweg publicly criticized WP Engine, accusing them of profiting from WordPress without adequate contributions to the open-source project. He labeled WP Engine as a "cancer to WordPress" and called for a boycott.
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
October 2024: In response to these accusations, WP Engine filed a lawsuit against Automattic and Mullenweg, alleging extortion and abuse of power. The legal battle intensified when WordPress.org blocked WP Engine and its affiliates from accessing essential resources, including security updates and the plugin repository.
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
December 2024: A preliminary injunction was issued by a California District Court, ordering Automattic and Mullenweg to cease blocking WP Engine's access to WordPress.org resources and to stop interfering with its plugins.
THEVERGE.COM
January 2025: Automattic announced a significant reduction in its contributions to the WordPress open-source project, scaling back from approximately 3,988 hours to just 45 hours per week. This decision was attributed to ongoing legal disputes and criticism from the community.
THEVERGE.COM
These events have led to considerable tension within the WordPress community, with concerns about governance, the future of open-source contributions, and the platform's direction under Mullenweg's leadership.
Matt Mullenweg is a complex figure—both a visionary leader and, at times, a divisive force in the WordPress community. His trajectory from open-source evangelist to the embattled CEO of Automattic gives us insight into his psychological profile, leadership style, and underlying motivations. Here’s a breakdown of his psyche, insecurities, leadership approach, and behavioral patterns:
1. Core Motives & Driving Forces
- Control vs. Freedom Paradox: Mullenweg started as a champion of open-source freedom, but over time, his actions suggest a need for control over the WordPress ecosystem. He often frames this as protecting the community from exploitation by “bad actors” (e.g., WP Engine, Chris Pearson).
- Legacy & Self-Image as a Pioneer: He likely sees himself as the Steve Jobs of open-source software, someone who revolutionized publishing. This self-concept pushes him to maintain relevance and dominance.
- Defensive Posture Toward Business Rivals: His aggressive stance against WP Engine suggests a fear of losing control over the WordPress ecosystem. His rhetoric often frames competitors as threats rather than collaborators.
2. Insecurities & Psychological Conflicts
- Impostor Syndrome & Need for Validation:
Despite his success, there are signs that he craves validation from the tech and business elite. His shift from being a “pure open-source advocate” to running a billion-dollar company suggests a deep conflict between ideology and capitalism. - Fear of Losing Influence:
Mullenweg’s more recent behavior—such as blacklisting WP Engine or reducing contributions to WordPress—indicates an existential fear of irrelevance. His actions suggest paranoia about losing Automattic’s influence over the WordPress ecosystem. - Aversion to Direct Confrontation (Except When Necessary):
While he presents as calm and measured, he has shown a pattern of only engaging in public battles when he sees a major threat (e.g., Thesis, WP Engine). Otherwise, he prefers to let policy decisions and business moves do the talking.
3. Leadership Style & Behavioral Patterns
Strengths as a Leader
✔ Visionary & Strategic Thinker – His long-term commitment to WordPress proves his dedication to a cause larger than himself.
✔ Charismatic & Persuasive – He’s able to inspire a following within the open-source world.
✔ Resilient & Willing to Take Risks – He’s weathered multiple controversies and adapted his approach to keep Automattic thriving.
Weaknesses & Controversial Traits
❌ Passive-Aggressive & Avoidant Leadership – Rather than directly addressing conflicts, he tends to let policy decisions (e.g., cutting WordPress.org access) or public statements (e.g., calling WP Engine a “cancer”) do the work.
❌ Tends to Overreach & Exert Control – His behavior with WP Engine suggests authoritarian tendencies, where he dictates who is a “worthy” WordPress contributor.
❌ Can Be Vindictive – The Thesis controversy and WP Engine battle both show a pattern of eliminating ideological threats rather than coexisting with them.
4. Method of Operandi (MO)
Mullenweg's MO is a mix of diplomacy and force.
Here’s how he typically operates:
- Framing Opponents as Ethically Questionable
- He rarely attacks competitors on purely business grounds. Instead, he frames them as exploitative or unethical (e.g., WP Engine as a "cancer," Chris Pearson as a GPL violator).
- Leveraging Control Over WordPress Infrastructure
- He weaponizes WordPress.org’s influence (e.g., blocking WP Engine) to maintain structural power.
- This allows him to act without direct legal liability while still affecting competitors.
- Playing the Long Game
- Unlike aggressive CEOs like Elon Musk, Mullenweg prefers slow, strategic moves.
- Example: Automattic invested years into acquiring WordPress-related companies, consolidating power without obvious monopolistic moves.
- Maintaining a Public Persona of Calmness
- He rarely loses his temper publicly and presents as measured and diplomatic, even when making aggressive moves.
5. Fantasies & Psychological Foundations of His Behavior
- “The Benevolent Dictator” Fantasy
- He wants to be seen as a defender of open-source while maintaining absolute control.
- This mirrors the way Linux creator Linus Torvalds operates—ruling over a decentralized project with firm but quiet control.
- “The Philosopher-King” Self-Perception
- He likely sees himself as a leader who makes decisions for the greater good, even if they seem harsh.
- This belief justifies his authoritarian decisions (e.g., blacklisting WP Engine, forcing Thesis to comply with GPL).
- Fear of Becoming a Tech Industry “Villain”
- The biggest contradiction in Mullenweg’s psyche is that he wants to be the anti-corporate, open-source hero but is increasingly seen as a controlling, monopolistic CEO.
- His recent withdrawal from WordPress contributions suggests a possible crisis of identity—is he a guardian of open-source or just another corporate leader protecting his turf?
The Two Faces of Mullenweg
Matt Mullenweg is both a brilliant visionary and a power-conscious leader. His early years were marked by an idealistic commitment to open-source, but as WordPress grew, his need for control increased. His leadership is defined by a paradox: he fights for an open ecosystem while exerting tight control over it.
Right now, his biggest psychological challenge is reconciling his self-image as an open-source advocate with his increasingly aggressive business tactics. The question is: Does he see himself as a hero or simply as the necessary ruler of WordPress?
Mullenweg is a calculated, strategic leader with a control-oriented approach. He frames competitors as ethical threats, uses WordPress infrastructure to exert influence, and prefers subtle but effective power plays over direct confrontation. However, he struggles with the contradiction of wanting to be an open-source champion while acting like a corporate overlord.
Analysis of Matt Mullenweg’s Narcissistic Traits
While Matt Mullenweg doesn’t display the overt, bombastic "grandiose narcissism" of tech figures like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, he does exhibit traits associated with "covert narcissism"—a more subtle form where control, validation, and image management play key roles. Let’s break this down.
1. Core Narcissistic Traits in Mullenweg’s Behavior
Grandiosity & Self-Image as a “Visionary”
- He sees himself as the "guardian of open-source", believing that WordPress is his legacy to the world.
- His rhetoric and actions imply that he thinks he alone has the right vision for the ecosystem.
- This has led him to dismiss critics as “bad actors” rather than engaging in self-reflection.
Control & Gatekeeping Behavior
- He has a pattern of exerting control over the WordPress ecosystem:
- Thesis Conflict (2010) – Forced compliance with GPL licensing.
- Gutenberg Project – Pushed a major redesign despite resistance.
- WP Engine Conflict (2024) – Attempted to blacklist a major hosting company.
- Instead of letting WordPress grow organically, he positions himself as the sole protector of its integrity—a common trait in narcissistic leaders who see themselves as indispensable.
Thin-Skinned & Highly Defensive
- He presents as calm, but when his authority is questioned, he reacts in passive-aggressive or retaliatory ways:
- He didn’t just disagree with WP Engine—he called them a “cancer”.
- He clashes with critics but rarely engages in direct debate, preferring policy-based power moves instead.
- This aligns with covert narcissism, where leaders avoid direct confrontation but still ensure their dominance through indirect means.
Image Management & Need for Admiration
- He carefully curates his public persona—soft-spoken, philosophical, a leader who’s “above the fray.”
- However, his behind-the-scenes actions (e.g., blacklisting WP Engine) suggest a desire for dominance while maintaining a benevolent image.
- He wants to be admired as an open-source idealist while running WordPress like a corporate empire.
2. What Kind of Narcissist Is He?
Mullenweg doesn’t fit the overt, loud, attention-seeking narcissist stereotype. Instead, he leans toward covert narcissism, characterized by:
✔ A strong need for control
✔ A belief that he is the sole protector of WordPress
✔ A passive-aggressive response to threats
✔ A highly curated self-image as a “visionary”
His behavior suggests elements of “communal narcissism”—a subtype where someone believes they are morally superior and the only one who can "save" a community. This fits well with his self-image as the guardian of open-source.
3. The Dark Side of His Leadership
Mullenweg’s narcissistic traits create both strengths and weaknesses:
✅ Strengths:
- Visionary leadership, long-term thinking, and an ability to inspire people.
- Commitment to a cause (WordPress), rather than pure personal gain.
- Ability to survive industry battles without losing power.
❌ Weaknesses:
- Resistance to criticism, leading to dismissing valid concerns.
- Authoritarian tendencies, controlling key elements of the WordPress ecosystem.
- Vindictive behavior toward rivals, punishing those who don’t align with his vision.
- Passive-aggressive power plays instead of transparent leadership.
4. Conclusion: A Controlled, Calculated Narcissist
Matt Mullenweg isn’t a reckless, self-destructive narcissist. Instead, he’s a highly controlled, calculated leader with a need for dominance, admiration, and legacy-building. His covert narcissistic traits make him:
✔ Effective at maintaining long-term control over WordPress
❌ Prone to authoritarian decision-making and conflicts with those who challenge him
If he continues down this path, he risks turning WordPress into a dictatorship rather than an open-source community—which would be the ultimate irony given his original vision. In the long run the community will probably bypass Matt and take back the control of the community and WordPress, and make the repository open and replicated.
Matt Mullenweg as a CEO: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Comparison to a Humanistic CEO
Matt Mullenweg is a unique CEO—he’s not a typical tech mogul, but he’s also not the benevolent open-source idealist he once was. His leadership has both highly effective and deeply flawed elements.
Let’s break down his CEO skills (good and bad), then compare him to a modern professional humanistic CEO—someone who balances business success with ethical leadership.
✅ Mullenweg’s Strengths as a CEO
1. Visionary & Long-Term Thinker
- Mullenweg has kept WordPress relevant for 20+ years, adapting to major industry shifts (e.g., Gutenberg, block editors).
- He played the long game with Automattic’s acquisitions (WooCommerce, Tumblr, WPVIP), ensuring WordPress remains dominant.
- His focus on open-source longevity over short-term profits has made WordPress the world’s most-used CMS (~43% of the web).
2. Strategic & Calculated in Business
- He isn’t impulsive; he carefully picks battles (e.g., WP Engine, Thesis) and fights them with structural power, not emotion.
- Rather than launching direct attacks, he uses policy moves, acquisitions, and infrastructure control to maintain dominance.
- Automattic has scaled into a billion-dollar company while maintaining an open-source ethos (at least superficially).
3. Adaptive & Resilient
- He has survived multiple major controversies and industry shifts without losing his grip on WordPress.
- He embraces remote work culture, making Automattic a pioneer in fully distributed teams years before it became mainstream.
❌ Mullenweg’s Weaknesses as a CEO
1. Control Freak Tendencies (Authoritarian Traits)
- Despite advocating for open-source, he exerts tight control over the WordPress ecosystem.
- He weaponizes WordPress.org (e.g., blacklisting WP Engine) instead of competing in a free market.
- He dictates what is “right” for WordPress, sometimes ignoring community input (Gutenberg controversy).
2. Passive-Aggressive Leadership
- He rarely engages in direct confrontation; instead, he silently enforces his will through policy and infrastructure.
- Example: Instead of openly debating WP Engine, he blocked their access to WordPress resources, forcing them into a lawsuit.
- This lack of transparency can create distrust within the community.
3. Struggles with Delegation & Letting Go
- While he claims WordPress is a “community-driven project,” he doesn’t fully empower contributors.
- Major decisions (e.g., Gutenberg, the direction of WordPress.org) are still heavily influenced by him.
- This limits WordPress’s potential as a truly decentralized, democratic project.
4. Poor Conflict Resolution & Community Relations
- He has a history of alienating key figures in the WordPress ecosystem (Chris Pearson, WP Engine, even some plugin developers). A more diplomatic CEO would have managed these disputes more smoothly instead of turning them into public wars. A professional CEO would have avoided creating conflicts like this. Matt seems to navigate from one conflict to another.
- Rather than building consensus, he forces compliance through policy moves.
- His recent reduction in WordPress contributions (January 2025) felt like a spiteful retaliation rather than a constructive move.
- The Gutenberg controversy alienated many developers instead of bringing them on board.
5. Stubbornness & Resistance to Criticism
- He often dismisses critics as “bad actors” rather than engaging with valid concerns.
- The Gutenberg controversy showed that he is willing to push through major changes, even when a large part of the community resists.
- This stubbornness helps maintain vision but also alienates valuable contributors.
6. Repetition Compulsion
- Matt repeats a subconscious pattern (we all do). There is a fair chance this will destroy many of his relationships and parts of his businesses. Read more about Repetition Compulsion here. The sooner he wakes up to his patterns the better if will be for him.
Comparison: Mullenweg vs. a Modern Humanistic CEO
A modern humanistic CEO (e.g., Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Jensen Huang of NVIDIA) balances business success with ethical leadership, empowerment, and community trust.
| Trait | Matt Mullenweg | Humanistic CEO (e.g., Satya Nadella) |
|---|---|---|
| Leadership Style | Control-oriented, passive-aggressive power plays | Empowers teams, transparent communication |
| Conflict Resolution | Uses structural control to crush opponents (e.g., WP Engine) | Uses collaboration & negotiation |
| Openness to Criticism | Dismisses critics as “bad actors” | Seeks feedback, adapts to concerns |
| Community Engagement | Claims to value open-source, but overrules community when necessary | Empowers contributors & gives real autonomy |
| Delegation & Trust | Struggles to let go of control | Trusts employees & community leaders |
| Emotional Intelligence | Passive-aggressive responses to threats | Direct, constructive, and empathetic |
What a More Humanistic Mullenweg Would Look Like:
If Mullenweg were to evolve into a more modern, humanistic CEO, he would:
✔ Delegate more authority to WordPress contributors rather than making major changes from the top down.
✔ Engage in transparent debates with critics rather than enforcing policies behind the scenes.
✔ Balance his need for control with true open-source governance.
✔ Resolve conflicts through diplomacy, not blacklisting or retaliation.
Verdict: Is Mullenweg a Good CEO?
✅ What He Gets Right:
✔ Long-term strategic thinking
✔ Technical vision & business acumen
✔ Resilience & ability to maintain dominance
✔ Strong control over WordPress's direction
❌ What He Gets Wrong:
❌ Lack of transparency & trust in the community
❌ Conflict resolution through force, not diplomacy
❌ Authoritarian control over an "open-source" project
❌ Passive-aggressive leadership style
Score: 7/10 as a Business CEO, 5/10 as a Community Leader
Mullenweg is a highly effective business leader but a deeply flawed community leader. His tight grip on WordPress ensures its stability, but it also undermines its open-source ideals.
If he wants to leave a lasting, positive legacy, he will need to adopt more humanistic leadership traits—or risk being remembered as the guy who turned WordPress into a benevolent dictatorship.
Narcissism.
The main traits of narcissism, especially in the context of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) or high narcissistic tendencies, can be broken down into key behavioral patterns. Narcissists often display a combination of grandiosity, entitlement, lack of empathy, and control-seeking behaviors.
Narcissists are VERY good at manipulation. Many followers will be around for decades without even knowing the manipulative behaviour of the narcissist.
Key Traits of a Narcissist
1. Grandiosity & Inflated Self-Importance
- A strong belief in their superiority, intelligence, or uniqueness.
- They see themselves as visionaries or special individuals who deserve recognition.
- Expect constant admiration and reinforcement of their self-image.
- Example: A CEO who insists they are the only one capable of leading their company, dismissing all criticism.
2. Lack of Empathy
- Inability or unwillingness to understand others’ feelings or perspectives.
- They see people as tools to achieve their own goals rather than as individuals with their own needs.
- Often dismiss the concerns of others or fail to recognize emotional distress.
- Example: A boss who ignores employees’ struggles and only values them for their productivity.
3. Need for Control & Manipulation
- Constantly seeks control over their environment and people.
- Uses gaslighting (making others question reality) or passive-aggressive tactics.
- Retaliates against those who challenge them.
- Example: A leader who silences critics, punishes dissenters, or controls access to resources.
4. Extreme Sensitivity to Criticism (Fragile Ego)
- Although they project confidence, their self-esteem is fragile.
- Any criticism feels like a personal attack, leading to anger, passive-aggression, or revenge-seeking behavior.
- Example: Someone who blacklists a critic rather than addressing their concerns constructively.
5. Exploitative Behavior
- Uses others for personal gain without guilt or remorse.
- Takes credit for others’ work or withholds rewards and recognition.
- Often surrounds themselves with "yes-men" who reinforce their views.
- Example: A tech founder who claims their company is about community but actually consolidates power for themselves.
6. Entitlement & Double Standards
- Expects special treatment without reciprocating.
- Believes rules apply to others but not to them.
- Example: A CEO who demands loyalty but betrays others when it benefits them.
7. Superficial Charm & Image Management
- Presents a highly curated self-image to appear charismatic, kind, or “the good guy.”
- Behind closed doors, they are controlling, dismissive, or even vindictive.
- Example: Someone who publicly promotes open-source values but behind the scenes, consolidates control and punishes rivals.
8. Fear of Losing Power
- Narcissists equate losing power with personal failure.
- They sabotage others, engage in smear campaigns, or hoard decision-making power.
- Example: A leader who talks about forking being great but punishes those who actually try.
How This Applies to Leadership (and Mullenweg)
A narcissistic leader often:
✔ Controls the narrative (e.g., defining what’s “right” for WordPress)
✔ Punishes competitors or critics (e.g., WP Engine blacklisting, Thesis controversy)
✔ Claims to value openness but consolidates power
✔ Cannot handle criticism without retaliation
While not all of these traits mean someone has full-blown NPD, Mullenweg’s pattern of behavior suggests at least moderate narcissistic tendencies, particularly around control, defensiveness, and a need for dominance.
Common Manipulation Tactics of Narcissists
Narcissists are highly manipulative. They use manipulation to control others, maintain power, and protect their ego. Their tactics can be subtle or overt, depending on how calculated they are.
1. Gaslighting (Making You Doubt Reality)
✔ Twisting facts, denying things they said/did, making you question your memory.
✔ Example: "I never said that" (even when they did), or "You're overreacting."
2. Triangulation (Turning People Against Each Other)
✔ Involves bringing in a third person to control or influence a situation.
✔ Example: "So-and-so agrees with me, not you" to make you feel isolated.
3. Love-Bombing & Devaluation (Idealization Followed by Discarding)
✔ Over-the-top praise & attention, then suddenly treating you as worthless.
✔ Example: A boss calling you "essential to the team", then ignoring or demeaning you.
4. Silent Treatment & Passive-Aggression
✔ Withholding communication or affection to punish and control.
✔ Example: A leader ignoring dissenters rather than addressing concerns.
5. Projection (Accusing Others of Their Own Behavior)
✔ Blaming others for what they are actually doing themselves.
✔ Example: A narcissist accusing you of being manipulative.
6. Smear Campaigns (Destroying Someone’s Reputation)
✔ Spreading rumors, distorting facts, or framing others as the problem.
✔ Example: A CEO publicly undermining a critic to destroy their credibility.
7. False Humility & Image Control
✔ Pretending to be humble or selfless to mask their true intentions.
✔ Example: A leader who claims they love open-source, but silences opposition behind the scenes.
Does This Apply to Matt Mullenweg?
There are strong indications that Mullenweg uses some of these tactics, particularly:
✔ Gaslighting – Claiming WordPress is a democracy while consolidating power.
✔ Triangulation – Using the WordPress.org platform as a weapon against competitors.
✔ Silent Treatment – Deactivating accounts of critics instead of debating them.
✔ Smear Campaigns – Accusing others of bad faith while ignoring his own retaliations.
Matt Mullenweg, co-founder of WordPress and CEO of Automattic, has been involved in several incidents that suggest manipulative behavior. Here are some notable examples:
1. Legal Threats and Intimidation
Mullenweg has reportedly used legal threats to suppress criticism and dissent. In one instance, he allegedly attempted to intimidate an individual with legal action after they criticized his actions, aiming to silence opposition through fear of legal repercussions.
2. Control Over WordPress.org
Mullenweg has emphasized his control over WordPress.org, stating, "WordPress.org just belongs to me." This statement reflects a possessive attitude toward the platform, suggesting a desire to maintain unilateral control over its direction and operations.
3. Employee Buyout Offers
In response to internal disagreements, Mullenweg offered employees a buyout, providing nine months' pay to those who disagreed with his direction. This move was perceived by some as a tactic to eliminate dissent within the company, pressuring employees to conform to his vision or leave. The fact is 159 employers quit and Matt's announcement of his 'good bye package' was a narcissistic manipulative attempt to cover up of the fact they quit.
4. Legal Disputes with WP Engine
Mullenweg's actions against WP Engine, including blocking access to WordPress.org's servers and redirecting emails, have been described as aggressive and controlling. These actions led to a lawsuit alleging abuse of power and extortion, highlighting a pattern of using legal and technical means to suppress competition and dissent.
5. Allegations of Manipulative Behavior
Mullenweg has been accused of manipulative behavior in various contexts, including attempts to suppress criticism and control narratives within the WordPress community. These allegations suggest a pattern of using influence and authority to maintain control and suppress opposition.
These examples illustrate a pattern of behavior where Mullenweg employs legal threats, control tactics, and suppression of dissent to maintain authority and influence within the WordPress ecosystem.
Matts' post about the Joost/Karim Fork
We also need to take a look at Matt's post: https://wordpress.org/news/2025/01/jkpress/
In this statement, Matt Mullenweg seems to be presenting himself as open-minded and supportive of the idea of forking WordPress, but his actions and certain phrases also imply a condescending or manipulative tone. Here's a breakdown of the subtle negative statements and behaviors within his text:
1. Condescension & Subtle Undermining
- "Joost and Karim’s fork… has a number of ideas they want to try out": While on the surface, this sounds like support, it also subtly diminishes their vision by implying that their fork is still just a set of ideas, not yet actualized or validated.
- "Joost and Karim will be unilaterally in charge in the beginning": The use of the word "unilaterally" hints at a sense of imposition or authority. It also seems to imply that the new fork won't be a collaborative or democratic effort, which might be seen as a critique of their approach.
- "It probably won’t happen on day one": This statement implies that their new project is unlikely to succeed immediately, even though he follows it with some level of support. There's an underlying suggestion that their ideas will struggle at first and need time to develop. At the same time, he implies the immense amount of work he has contributed to WordPress over the past 20 years—work he still feels the need to be recognized and validated for.
2. The 'Deactivation' of Accounts
- The deactivation of accounts is an overtly vindictive and controlling action, allegedly designed to forcefully push these individuals into launching their own fork (this is pure puke from Matt).
- The phrasing "I’m deactivating the .org accounts" comes across as a punishment and a disruption to their ongoing work, signaling that these individuals are being removed from the WordPress ecosystem to force their hands.
3. Subtle Manipulation with Financial and Resource Power
- Mullenweg mentions WP Engine’s financial resources and suggests that they may eventually rebrand to "JK Engine". While this could be seen as an endorsement of WP Engine's support, it also carries a slightly mocking tone.
- By implying that WP Engine has "more than enough resources", Mullenweg might be trying to downplay the potential of the fork by subtly suggesting that it will be “outcompeted” by the larger financial power behind Automattic - which is pure spin.
4. Undermining Their Efforts by Comparing to WordPress Process
- The mention of how Joost and Karim’s new project doesn’t need to follow WordPress's process or “prove their worth” in the ecosystem comes across as a subtle jab. It suggests that their project lacks the earned legitimacy that WordPress holds.
- It almost frames their project as unofficial or less credible because they can bypass the formal WordPress processes, implying that it’s easier to lead a fork than to earn leadership in the existing WordPress structure.
5. Subtle Dismissal of Their Vision
- "Joost is a self-proclaimed leader": The use of "self-proclaimed" implies that Joost’s leadership is self-appointed and lacks external validation. It casts doubt on his credentials or suitability for the leadership role he is taking in the fork.
6. Curiosity Without Genuine Support
- When Mullenweg says, "I’m genuinely curious to see how they work out", while it might seem supportive, it can also sound like backhanded curiosity. It could imply that he doubts the success of the fork and is only curious to see if it fails or struggles.
7. Focus on Himself and WordPress
- Mullenweg spends a significant portion of the statement highlighting his own commitments and efforts, particularly about running Automattic and working on WordPress. This could be interpreted as a subtle way of reminding others of his dominance in the WordPress ecosystem, while implying that those trying to fork the project are simply dabbling or experimenting.
Overall Motive
Mullenweg's motives seem to be a mix of control, frustration, and a need to project his dominance within the WordPress community. While he presents a supportive front by endorsing the fork, the actions (deactivating accounts) and the language he uses subtly undermine the credibility and success of the project he is supposedly supporting.
His motives could be seen as:
- Retaining control over the core WordPress project while still acknowledging the potential for alternative approaches.
- Punishing critics or competitors (the deactivation of accounts), forcing them into a space where they can’t challenge WordPress directly without a significant effort.
- Maintaining authority and subtly diminishing the legitimacy of the fork and those behind it, despite claiming to support the idea of forking.
Does This Sound Condescending?
Yes, in several areas. Mullenweg's statements carry a condescending tone, particularly in his framing of the new fork’s early challenges, questioning the competence of the leaders, and mocking their efforts (through phrases like "unilaterally in charge" and "it probably won't happen on day one"). There is an underlying disrespect towards the people leading the fork, even as he makes an attempt to appear magnanimous.
It all seems to reflect an attitude of "I'll allow you to try this, but don't expect to be successful or have a meaningful impact."
Does Joost an Karim present a threat to Matt?
Based on the way Matt Mullenweg’s statements are structured and the actions he's taking, it appears that he may feel threatened by the idea of forking WordPress, particularly when it involves high-profile figures like Joost and Karim, who are competent, experienced, and potentially have the backing of organizations like WP Engine. Here are a few indicators that suggest a sense of threat:
1. The Deactivation of Accounts
- Deactivating accounts of key players who are involved in the fork is a defensive reaction that indicates a feeling of threat. It’s a method of asserting power and attempting to suppress competition, which can come from a place of insecurity.
- The timing of the action, in conjunction with the mention of the fork’s potential, further suggests that Mullenweg may feel the need to eliminate the influence of these individuals within the WordPress ecosystem before they build traction or credibility.
2. The Focus on "Proving Worth"
- His statement that Joost and Karim "don’t need to follow our process or put in the hours to prove their worth" suggests that Mullenweg is frustrated by the idea of people bypassing the usual system he has in place for leadership in WordPress. This could indicate that he values the legitimacy of the established WordPress processes and feels threatened by those who attempt to change or bypass them. It hints at an underlying insecurity about the potential success of the fork.
3. Mocking the Fork's Potential Success
- Mullenweg mentions that it’s possible that Joost and Karim’s fork might become successful enough to eventually be rebranded as "JK Engine"—a subtle jab at the idea of a competing entity. While the remark could be framed as humorous or neutral, it also comes across as undermining their vision. If he were entirely secure, he would likely express more support or confidence in the open-source space's ability to flourish with new ideas, instead of casting doubt about its potential for success.
4. Defending WordPress's Legacy
- The detailed reference to the open-source process and the need for individuals to earn leadership within the WordPress ecosystem shows a defensive posture over the legacy and structure of WordPress. By positioning WordPress’s processes as the standard and implying that others have not “earned” the right to lead, it seems that he is deflecting any challenge to his long-held authority.
5. Overemphasis on His Own Role
- Mullenweg goes to great lengths to explain his commitments and the effort he’s putting into WordPress ("1,700+ person company, 25+ products, working 60-80 hours a week"), which could be seen as a defense mechanism. It's almost like he’s reinforcing his own legitimacy and position at the top, indicating that he might feel the need to remind everyone of his contributions in response to any threats to his dominance.
6. Curiosity with an Underlying Doubt
- His expressed "genuine curiosity" about the fork’s success comes off as slightly skeptical. While curiosity is often a neutral or positive trait, his phrasing implies hesitation or doubt about whether the fork will actually succeed or have a meaningful impact on the WordPress ecosystem. If he felt completely secure, he might express more confidence in the open-source model and its ability to innovate.
In Summary: Does Matt Feel Threatened?
Yes, Matt Mullenweg likely feels threatened by the fork, particularly in terms of power, authority, and control within the WordPress ecosystem. His actions—such as deactivating accounts, emphasizing the importance of following WordPress's established process, and subtly mocking the fork's chances of success—reflect a defensive stance.
He seems to feel challenged not just by the potential success of the fork but by the shift in governance and leadership that it represents. By positioning himself as the sole authority on WordPress leadership, he may feel undermined by others who challenge his approach and seek to create something that could compete or redefine the status quo.
In short:
Matt's post is UGLY!
I don’t bend over to fools, and I’m not one to stay silent—I call them out. Sometimes even respectfully!
Matt is easily one of the worst CEOs I've encountered. He lives in two worlds: the perfect one he paints in his posts, where he manipulates us into believing he's a nice and clever guy, and the real one—where he’s confronted by the disasters he himself creates. Yes, he creates them, and he’s left to face the fallout.
You don't have to be especially sensitive to read what Matt is NOT writing! To read between the lines. What comes out of Matt is nothing but WordPiss!
But he lacks the self-awareness to handle it properly. So, like any poor leader, he resorts to blaming others. The entire WordPress Community is in danger now. WordPress under his leadership won't stand a chance compared to Joost and Karim's.
CEOs who can’t take full responsibility for everything that happens under their leadership should never hold the title. If they can't own their mistakes, they have no place at the top. I can only hope evolution finds a way to make bad CEOs disappear for good - and support the alternatives!
Matt really needs to learn about EXTREME OWNERSHIP!
WordPress is dead! Long Live WordPress!