Shackling a free market: WordPress canonical plugins

[chipbennett]

If we really wanted to push this in a certain direction we probably should have started jumping up and down when they first started mentioning the concept. As it stands, we've waited quite a long time before airing concerns about it. Personally I just figured it would work itself out, which it probably will, but in retrospect I would have been a little more vocal and been more proactive in suggesting ideas/promoting them.

What's it been, a month or two?

Why the rush? This idea seems to be one that should naturally be allowed to percolate for a long time, before anyone even *thinks* of trying any sort of implementation.

[andreasnrb]

Well problem is there was just one official blogpost and then silence. I can't remember any posts previous to that poll and not anything after it either. Dev Chat and dev maillist does not count.
And now they respond with statements that gives the impressions that everything is set in stone. Sanctioned Healthcheck plugin to become core plugin and who knows what else.

Its really badly handled I think. It seems we need to crash the dev chat blog again so we get the attention of Matt just like with the whole privacy thing. Which we should not be required to do.

[kgraeme]

I first heard it from this presentation at WordCamp Seattle in Sept.
http://wordpress.tv/2009/09/26/mark-...ins-seattle09/

Not to fault Mark, but does mentioned in the second half of a presentation about BuddyPress count as an announcement?

[Ryan]

Ok. Perhaps we should bring it up in the dev chat then.

I'm guessing that's you volunteering again Chip? You seemed to do a good job last time of at least bringing attention to the issue.

I'm not really sure where I stand on the whole situation, but I'd like to at least discuss it. The "black box" information flow from WordPress.org is a bit weird and if we can do something to improve it that would be good IMO.

[chipbennett]

Yep the impression is that the ship has sailed.
But I don't really like the idea of components either. Even more blackboxes and magic buttons.

My thinking is that it makes more sense (to me, anyway), to refer to the BuddyPress "module" or "component" - that is, core-integrated functionality that can be enabled or disabled, and that can be extended through plugins.

How is such functionality most-easily/intuitively managed by the user?

1. In an already crowded Manage Plugins page, or
2. On an Optional Components page, where the user can enable the Social Networking component (BuddyPress), or the Multi-Site component (MU), or the Forum component (bbPress), or the Podcasting component (PodPress), or the Micro-Blogging component (TwitPress), etc.?

Using the latter:

1. Terminology is no longer confusing. ("Core Plugin"? Plugins for core plugins?)
2. UI is logically separated between officially supported functionality (core components) and third-party extensions (plugins).

I'm not sure how it would be a "black box".

Would it mean that "HealthCheck" doesn't become a "core component"? Yeah, probably.

But then, it should either be integrated into core, or left as simply a plugin.

Though a bunch of people making an API for certain functionality without any labels could be an alternative. If its marketed etc other devs will use it.

Exactly. And having "core components" doesn't discriminate among the various plugins within the development space around the functionality represented by the core component (e.g. the current Twitter plugin developers can still extend the Micro-Blogging component (TwitPress or whatever) to provide the functionality of their existing plugins).

And then we are somewhat on the way to distros. Ubuntu devs don't make their own kernel. They don't make their own screenhandler? KDE or Fluxbox etc either.

And that would be a good thing. The more WordPress distros there are out there, the more WordPress has reason for continued existence, maintenance, and improvement.

[chipbennett]

Ok. Perhaps we should bring it up in the dev chat then.

I'm guessing that's you volunteering again Chip? You seemed to do a good job last time of at least bringing attention to the issue.

Absolutely!

Should I start another thread (as with the privacy policy) to hash out our recommended guidelines for Core Components (as I'm going to call them for the time being), or just keep it here in this thread?

I'm not really sure where I stand on the whole situation, but I'd like to at least discuss it. The "black box" information flow from WordPress.org is a bit weird and if we can do something to improve it that would be good IMO.

Boy, now, that's another whole topic for discussion entirely!

[hallsofmontezuma]

"Should I start another thread (as with the privacy policy) to hash out our recommended guidelines for Core Components (as I'm going to call them for the time being), or just keep it here in this thread?"

Yes. That's a branch of this. :)

[andreasnrb]

I'm not sure how it would be a "black box".

I use black box in regards to who is in charge, how things are decided etc. If they cant manage it for one project how will it go down with x projects.

I agree module would be a better name for. Don't really like component. But there are a huge difference between BuddyPress and a twitter module. Should we have extra APIs or should we have modules etc.

[kgraeme]

I like the concept of it being about additional core/component APIs rather than just a "most popular" plugin.

[chipbennett]

I use black box in regards to who is in charge, how things are decided etc. If they cant manage it for one project how will it go down with x projects.

I agree module would be a better name for. Don't really like component. But there are a huge difference between BuddyPress and a twitter module. Should we have extra APIs or should we have modules etc.

Well, maybe the micro-blogging component (Twitter) needs only a defined API, while the social-networking component (BuddyPress) needs full-blown functionality? Either way, both can still be viewed merely as components of WordPress.

Heck, the blogging functionality could even be rolled into a "component", also, allowing users to turn it off entirely, too.