Canonical Plugins

[carlhancock]

I don't like any of the names, nor do I think the plugins need some sort of special name attached to them. Canonical in particular I can't stand. Just give the plugin a name based on the functionality.

All of the names cast a negative connotation on the rest of the plugins in the repository that don't have that name attached to them.

There is also not anything stopping people from doing this now. Some people within the WordPress project have a problem with the fact most plugins are developed by individuals or at the most very small teams. There isn't a lot of "community" developed plugins.

But this isn't because there is some flaw in the system. There is nothing stopping people from doing this now... except most plugin developers prefer to work on their own projects so nobody has stepped up on done it. You can't force plugin developers to collaborate.

Many of the plugins available for WordPress just simply aren't big enough, nor complex enough, to warrant a large team of plugin developers collaborating on them.

[Ryan]

The only ones I can think of with multiple contributers are those backed by companies, like WP e-Commerce.

[carlhancock]

Who exactly is going to provide support for these plugins? Are they going to be supported?

[andrea_r]

Think of this in terms of plugins like BuddyPress. Perfect example I think.

And look at podPress - if that was, or could be in the future, a "core" plugin, then people using will know there are others dedicated to its upkeep and support, and it's not going to go away or break on an upgrade.

[carlhancock]

Think of this in terms of plugins like BuddyPress. Perfect example I think.

I don't think this is anything like BuddyPress. BuddyPress was developed by one person, Andy Peatling, and then it was acquired by Automattic. Andy is still the primary developer and is paid by Automattic. It wasn't developed by a community. It was very much a one man show. It might still be a one man show... i'm not sure who else actively works on BuddyPress.

I think community developed plugins by plugin developers who know what the hell they are doing is a great idea. It will bring to the community high quality plugins. That is a great thing. HOWEVER I just don't see the need for these plugins to have any sort of special name attached to them. Just name the plugin and release it.

As soon as you attach any special designation to them it will immediately devalue the plugins that do not have that special designation attached to them in the eyes of the uninformed WordPress users... who also make up the majority of the user base.

Let us also forget that just because it's a community based project with some sort of official involvement by Automattic or WordPress that it is going to be successful or guarantee it's existence down the road... take a look at bbPress. 'nuff said.

[andrea_r]

Um, read the BP credits. It says "developed by the BP community". There are two "official" devs but really there are a handful of people who are actively (even if not officially) working on it. The features have even been very much community driven.

[Jeffro]

I'm not a fan of any of the terms either. When I hear canonical, I think of that URL thingy Google came out with and URL stuff.

I'd like for them to reach out to plugin developers and at least ask them what they think of the idea. From what I understand, it's already pretty easy to add on contributors to plugins. I think Michael can attest to this but at least behind the scenes, quite a few plugin authors work together to solve conflicts or to do bug fixes.

I'm not sure I'm too keen on the overall idea either. It seems to me that energy would be better spent improving how plugin authors can collaborate with each other, provide a way for plugin authors to put their plugins up for adoption, etc.

I don't think every plugin can be canonical since it will be developed hand in hand with the core software. Also, need more than one contributor. It almost sounds as if some aspects of my plugin validation team/badge idea are seeping into this canonical plugin thing.

I voted for Other and left it blank lol.

[wpmuguru]

I don't think this is anything like BuddyPress. BuddyPress was developed by one person, Andy Peatling, and then it was acquired by Automattic. Andy is still the primary developer and is paid by Automattic. It wasn't developed by a community. It was very much a one man show. It might still be a one man show... i'm not sure who else actively works on BuddyPress.

BuddyPress has a more active & involved development community than WordPress MU does.

[chipbennett]

Westi published the current results of the poll:

Jane filled us in on the current status of the “Canonical” plugins name vote current numbers Core: 1130, 34% Official 818, 24% Canonical 563, 17% Validated 399, 12% Other 215, 6% Standard 175, 5% Premium 55 2% In the Other bucket, there were a lot of votes for certified, verified, recommended, approved and a bunch of others meaning generally the same thing. Also a couple suggesting we use “core extensions’” instead of core plugins. The general favourite among those present was also with the core name. We will wait until the poll has finished and then review the overall results.

So:

• Core: 1130, 34%
• Official 818, 24%
• Canonical 563, 17%
• Validated 399, 12%
• Other 215, 6%
• Standard 175, 5%
• Premium 55 2%

Here's how I responded:

Is it not self-contradictory to call *any* plugin “core”, since by definition a plugin is an extension to, rather than a part of, core?

Further, to what are such plugins “core”? I assume thewy will not be installed by default, thus they are neither part of the core code nor part of the core download package.

We are setting ourselves up for headaches and confusion if we call such plugins “core”.

Seems to be some agreement in the comments thread.

Also, I would hope that the decision won't be based solely on the opinion of less than 0.01% of the WordPress user base. Hopefully, common sense will bear more weight.

[greenshady]

"Core" is just a bad idea altogether as the plugins are definitely not a part of the core code. I don't like the other names based on arguments already given in this thread.

So far, "canonical" seems to be the best to me (if we need a label at all for these plugins).