WordPress developer Michael Willman has filed a legal motion to intervene in the ongoing case between WP Engine and Automattic Inc., the company behind WordPress.com, and its CEO, Matt Mullenweg.
Submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 13, the filing outlines allegations of governance failures, retaliatory actions, and violations of open-source principles.
Willman’s motion proposes the establishment of an independent Governance Oversight Board to address systemic issues in the management of WordPress.org and its affiliated entities. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for February 23, 2025.
Willman claims that Automattic’s control over WordPress.org has created a conflict of interest that undermines the platform’s open-source ethos.
He accuses Mullenweg of retaliatory actions, including banning him from the community without due process, which he says led to significant financial losses and reputational harm. “I was banned without justification, causing financial harm and irreparable damage to my professional reputation,” Willman wrote in his declaration, submitted as part of the motion.
Matt Mullenweg previously had suspended the WordPress.org accounts of prominent contributors, including Joost de Valk, creator of the widely used Yoast SEO plugin.
Governance Challenges at WordPress.org
Central to Willman’s filing is the assertion that WordPress.org lacks transparency and accountability in its governance. He argues that Automattic’s dual role as both a commercial entity and a major contributor to the platform has skewed decision-making processes.
The motion calls for the creation of a Governance Oversight Board to oversee operations and enforce community guidelines. According to the filing, this board would ensure equitable governance and reduce the concentration of power within Automattic.
Willman’s accusations also touch on inconsistencies in how WordPress.org enforces its Code of Conduct. He claims that his ban violated community guidelines, which prioritize private warnings before public disciplinary actions.
“The Code of Conduct specifies private warnings as a first step, yet this process was ignored when I was banned,” the filing states.
Broader Context of the Legal Dispute
Willman’s motion is the latest development in a broader conflict between WP Engine and Automattic. The lawsuit, which began in late 2024, centers on allegations that Automattic engaged in anti-competitive practices, including restricting WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources and introducing a competing fork of a popular plugin, Secure Custom Fields.
WP Engine, a leading managed WordPress hosting provider, has described Automattic’s actions as detrimental to the open-source ecosystem.
In December 2024, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Automattic to restore WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org.
The judge ruled that Automattic’s actions disrupted WP Engine’s operations and posed broader risks to the WordPress community. “Defendants’ arguments in opposition do not establish that they will suffer any damage that overrides WP Engine’s interest in obtaining relief,” the ruling stated.
Retaliation Allegations and Financial Impact
Willman’s filing expands on these governance concerns by introducing allegations of retaliation. He claims that his ban from WordPress.org resulted in the loss of clients and significant financial setbacks, including the collapse of a $14,500 contract.
The filing also disputes Mullenweg’s characterization of the ban as justified, stating that it was rooted in personal grievances rather than policy violations. “This ban was retaliatory and inconsistent with the principles of fairness and transparency that the platform purports to uphold,” Willman argued.
These accusations highlight tensions within the WordPress community, where concerns about governance and corporate influence have been growing. Prominent contributors, including Joost de Valk and Heather Burns, have publicly criticized Automattic’s actions, citing fears that such practices could alienate the community and erode trust.
Implications of Forking WordPress
Discussions about forking WordPress—creating a separate version of the software—have gained traction amid these disputes. Forking is a common practice in open-source communities and allows developers to explore alternative governance models or technical innovations.
Joost de Valk, a leading figure in the WordPress community, has expressed support for a fork as a way to address imbalances in Automattic’s influence. “The current governance model risks alienating contributors and undermining the open-source ethos,” de Valk stated.
Forking, while offering opportunities for reform, also carries risks. Fragmenting the community could dilute resources and weaken WordPress’s dominant position in the CMS market, where it powers over 40% of websites globally. Historical examples, such as LibreOffice’s fork from OpenOffice, illustrate both the potential and challenges of such a move.
Community Reactions and Governance Reform
The WordPress community has been divided over the governance crisis. Automattic’s actions, including the suspension of key contributors, have sparked debates about the balance of power within the platform.
In response to the controversy, WP Engine has called for fairer governance practices, framing the current dispute as a turning point for WordPress.org.
Willman’s motion has amplified these calls, urging the court to compel reforms that prioritize accountability and inclusivity.
“The concentration of control within Automattic and Mr. Mullenweg has led to governance practices that undermine the open-source principles of WordPress. A Governance Oversight Board is necessary to restore trust and ensure equitable decision-making,” the filing concludes.
As the hearing approaches, the stakes for WordPress.org—and the broader open-source community—remain high. The outcome of this legal battle could set precedents for governance structures in open-source projects, influencing how communities navigate power dynamics and ensure accountability in the future.