Detailed Feedback 

Alongside open-ended questions, we asked for feedback on a few key areas, talks, speakers, venue, food, atmosphere, safety, and how we did as organisers. While the sample size was small, the overall takeaway is that most of you felt we did a pretty good job across the board. The data can be accessed in a table at the bottom of the page.

There was someone in particular who had a pretty bad time, we hope we can do better if there is a next time. With that person included the data look like the below. 

Still pretty good.

Let’s take a closer look at what worked, what didn’t, and where we can improve. We’ve removed any identifying information to keep it respectful and anonymous.

The questions we asked…

1. What do you see as the future of WordPress?
2. What do you think about the state of dialogue within the WordPress community?
3. What do you think about the structures and systems that shape the WordPress ecosystem?
4. What do you think of WordPress in relation to Free and Open Source?
5. Did we create a safe and independent space? 
6. Did we reduce self-censorship?  
7. What, if anything, should we do next? 
8. What would you like to tell us? 
9. How was the event? 

• Conclusion
• Data

Q1: What do you see as the future of WordPress?

People are pretty mixed on where WordPress is headed. Some are hopeful, saying the community is strong and passionate, and that there’s a bright future if things become more open and democratic. They’d love to see less top-down control and more collaboration, with the community having a real say in how things are run.

On the flip side, quite a few folks are frustrated. There’s a feeling that leadership is too centralized and not adapting fast enough, especially when it comes to AI and other tech trends. Some even think a fork of WordPress might be the only way forward if things don’t change.

Overall, there’s a lot of love for WordPress, but also a strong call for better governance, more transparency, and faster innovation. If that happens, most people think WordPress could still be the biggest and best CMS out there.

Q2: What do you think about the state of dialogue and diversity of viewpoints within the WordPress community?

People have a lot to say about how conversations are going in the WordPress community and it’s kind of all over the place. Some folks feel like there’s progress, but most think things are pretty chilly and closed off. There’s a sense that real dialogue isn’t happening, especially on the bigger stage where a few loud voices tend to dominate and shut down different opinions.

A lot of people feel like the community has gotten polarized, and that disagreement, especially with leadership, isn’t really welcome. Some even mentioned feeling fear or pressure to stay quiet, which obviously isn’t great for open discussion. Private chats seem to be where the real conversations are happening, because public spaces don’t feel safe or inclusive enough.

That said, there’s still a sense of hope. People want more diversity in viewpoints, more open discussion, and to bring in fresh voices, especially from outside the usual circle. When people do get together in person, like at some WordCamps, there are still good vibes and genuine connections. But overall, the community’s been hurt, and a lot of folks are just hoping for a healthier, more open atmosphere moving forward.

Q3: What do you think about the structures and systems that shape the WordPress ecosystem inside and outside of WordPress?

Most people feel like the structures around WordPress, both inside the project and in the broader ecosystem, are outdated and in serious need of change. There’s a common theme: too much power is concentrated in too few hands, especially one individual, and that’s stifling growth, transparency, and fresh contributions.

A few folks said it’s hard to even tell what the structure is, because it either doesn’t exist clearly or just isn’t working. There’s frustration that it’s tough for newcomers to get involved, especially if they aren’t sponsored by big companies. The current setup seems to reward long-time insiders and leaves little room for part-timers or indie contributors.

Some people are excited about emerging ideas like FAIR and the “Alt Ctrl Org” efforts that feel more grassroots and community-driven. There’s a real desire to see more open governance, maybe even something inspired by other open-source projects like Drupal or TYPO3. Overall, the vibe is: great community, not-so-great systems, and it’s time to rethink how things are run.

Q4: What do you think of WordPress in relation to Free and Open Source?

People have some strong and mixed feelings about WordPress and its relationship with free and open source. A lot of folks still love that WordPress is GPL-licensed and appreciate what that represents, it’s a powerful, flexible tool that’s helped tons of people build on the web. But there’s also a growing sense that while the code might be open, the project doesn’t feel very open anymore.

Some feel like the spirit of open source is missing, decision-making is too centralized, and the community doesn’t have enough control or say in where things are going. There’s a sense that the ecosystem benefits big agencies and companies more than the volunteers and small contributors who actually keep it running.

A few people expressed worry that they used to think WordPress was fully open source, only to find out later that there are deeper issues around governance and ownership. There’s a lot of hope, though, that it can become a leader in open source again, if things become more transparent, decentralized, and fair to the people who put in the work.

Q5: We wanted to create a safe and independent space to discuss topics that matter to the WordPress community as a whole. How did we do? 

First off, a huge thank you to everyone who showed up, participated, and shared feedback, positive or critical. It means a lot. Looking back, there are definitely some things we could have done better. Several people mentioned wanting more time and more space, both physically and in terms of the schedule, to allow for deeper, more meaningful discussions instead of just talks. Some also pointed out that better moderation and a bit more balance between excitement and thoughtful contribution could have helped make the conversations more productive and inclusive.

That said, we’re really proud of what this event managed to spark. Our goal was to create a safe, independent space where people could speak openly about the issues and hopes they have for the WordPress community.

Of course, not everyone had the same experience, and some felt silenced or pushed aside in moments where the energy tipped too far. That’s something we take seriously and want to learn from. We’re committed to making any future gatherings even more open, better balanced, and welcoming for everyone.

Q6: We wanted to reduce self-censorship when presenting ideas for the better of WordPress? How did we do?  

We’re really grateful for everyone’s honesty in their feedback, it helps us learn and grow. A few important things came up that we want to acknowledge directly.

First, we’ve been made aware that some inappropriate language may have been used during one of the talks, and we take that seriously. While we wanted to create space for open expression, this doesn’t mean anything goes, and we’ll be looking into how to better align with a respectful, inclusive environment in the future, clearly guided by a Code of Conduct.

Second, we should have communicated the presence of our last-minute livestream much more clearly. Some people didn’t realise it was happening, and for those who expected a fully private or off-the-record space, that was understandably uncomfortable. In the future, we’ll make sure those expectations are set and communicated at more points in the experience.

On the topic of talks, we encouraged speakers to submit their ideas to WordCamp EU first, and we’ll continue doing that. Some talks were rejected, while others came from people who didn’t feel safe or welcome applying, or who’ve been excluded from WordCamps altogether. We believe these voices still deserve to be heard, and that was part of our motivation in offering this platform.

As for self-censorship, responses were mixed. Many said they felt free and safe to speak, and that the stage welcomed ideas they hadn’t seen given room elsewhere. But some people still felt cautious or unsure if their views, especially if aligned with official leadership, would be welcome. That’s something we’ll reflect on. Our goal wasn’t to create an echo chamber, but to make space for conversation where it’s usually missing.

We’re committed to improving and continuing to build a space that values openness, respect, and real community dialogue.

Q7: What, if anything, should we do next? 

The message from the community is pretty clear: keep going. People want to see more events like this, both online and in person, to continue the conversations that matter but often don’t happen elsewhere. There’s a strong desire to create consistent spaces where folks can speak freely without fear of backlash, and where all perspectives are welcome.

A lot of people suggested timing future events around major WordCamps like EU, US, or Asia, to make them more accessible and relevant. There’s also interest in partnering with groups like Post Status or national WordCamps, and even making Alt Ctrl an annual side event wherever needed. Some mentioned the need for better sound or venues, and a few recommended using the current momentum for more outreach and visibility, possibly even through press or community media.

Overall, the response was encouraging. The community wants this space to grow, to stay inclusive, and to avoid further polarization. The goal isn’t just more events, but more genuine, balanced conversation and we’re committed to making that happen.

Q8: What would you like to tell us? 

We want to take a moment to address two key things that came up in the feedback, the food vouchers and the FAIR announcement and share a bit of context around both.

First, the food vouchers: these were actually required as part of our venue deal. When we originally booked the space, we planned for around 40 attendees and agreed to guarantee a minimum spend rather than paying for the venue or running an open tab. As the event grew far beyond that size, the voucher system quickly became more complicated than we expected. In hindsight, we totally get how confusing it was, and we’ll aim for a simpler approach next time.

Second, the FAIR announcement: some people felt it took over the event or disrupted the flow. The truth is, we intentionally kept planning light on purpose, we wanted this to feel organic, open, and ground-up. That said, we hear you, the transition between the FAIR talk, the panel, and open mic could have been handled more smoothly, and we’ll work on clearer facilitation next time without losing the spirit of flexibility.

Beyond that, the overall tone of your feedback was heartening, many of you spoke about how much you enjoyed the energy, the community vibe, and the boldness of creating this space. There were some helpful notes too: smoother check-in, better timing, less of an “inside crowd” feel, and maybe skipping food altogether to simplify things. We’re listening, and we appreciate the honesty. We’re learning as we go.

Q9: How was the event?

Feedback on the event was largely positive, people loved the energy, the vibe, and the freedom to connect and explore ideas in a more laid-back setting than the main conference. Many appreciated the smaller, underground feel and said they learned a lot, even if they didn’t fully understand everything. A few highlighted how refreshing it was to have space for real conversations.

Of course, not everyone had the same experience. Some noted that the event felt a bit improvised, with tech issues, lighting, and scheduling delays. Others were confused about food and drinks, which we’ve addressed separately. 

Still, most saw this as a strong first step, imperfect, yes, but with potential. And plenty of people said they’d come again. We’re proud of what this event sparked and really grateful to everyone who came with an open mind and honest feedback.

Conclusion

This was our first time bringing AltCtrl to life, and while it wasn’t perfect, it sparked exactly the kind of energy, conversation, and connection we were hoping for. We’ve learned a lot, from the need for clearer communication and smoother logistics, to the importance of holding space for all voices, even in messy or imperfect ways. The feedback has been honest, thoughtful, and hugely appreciated. We’re taking it all on board as we look toward what’s next.

If you’re interested in running your own Alt Ctrl style event, big or small, get in touch with us.

We’d love to support you in making it happen.

Data used in the graphs

How satisfied were you with Talks	How satisfied were you with the Food	How satisfied were you with Venue	How satisfied were you with the Speakers	How satisfied were you with Organizers	How satisfied were you with the Fun factor	How satisfied were you with Safety
OK	Great	Great	Good	Great	Great	Great
OK	OK	Not good	OK	OK	OK	OK
Great	Great	Great	Great	Great	Good	Great
OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK	OK
Great	Great	Great	Great	Great	Great	Great
Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	OK	Good
Great	Great	Great	Good	Great	OK	OK
Good	Great	Good	Good	Great	Great	Great
Great	OK	OK	Great	Great	Good	Great
Great	OK	OK	Good	Good	Good	Good
Not good	Great	Good	Not good	Good	OK	OK
Great	Good	Good	Great	Great	Great	Great
Great	Good	Great	Great	Great	Great	Great
Great	Great	Good	Great	Great	Good	Great
Good	OK	Great	Great	Great	Good	Great
Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	OK	Great
Great	Great	Great	Great	Great	Great	Great
Not good	Bad	Bad	OK	Bad	Bad	Bad
OK	Good	OK	Not good	Good	OK	Great
Great	Great	Good	Great	Great	Great	Great
Good	OK	Good	Great	Great	Good	Good
Good	Great	Great	Good	Great	Good	Good