This is going back to that “cap-in-hand” approach I was trying to avoid. But I agree that it should be simplified … how about something like this (again… feel free to edit)…
I am a keen user of your plugin, [PLUGIN NAME], and I have recently decided to migrate to ClassicPress (classicpress.net). This is a hard fork of WordPress 4.9.8. It’s in Beta 2 now and the team is working hard on the first production release, ClassicPress 1.0.0.
Version 1 of ClassicPress will always stay backward compatible with WP 4.9.x. and, at the moment, [PLUGIN NAME] is still working well for me. In fact, as long as it remains compatible with WP 4.9.x, it should also be fine with version 1.x of ClassicPress.
However, planning is already underway for more changes in Version 2, and these changes may require plugin developers to make more of a commitment to developing for ClassicPress. There are already a number of developers indicating their willingness to do so, and ClassicPress users are now compiling a list of ClassicPress-friendly plugins which are quickly becoming their preferred options. Obviously this presents a good opportunity for developers to gain access to a whole new market, and as a satisfied user of [PLUGIN NAME] I would very much like to to be able to continue using your product, rather than look for an alternative.
If you need more details about the techical requirements for ClassicPress you can find more information here … [LINKS]
The second link should be a page specifically for devs, which has the technical details that plugin developers would want and need to know. Most of that will need to be written (or at least drafted) by people who “speak developer”. (“CP will retain the oscillating framazam vericode through v3, at which point it will transition to the inverted doohickey framework with a modified Flubber API”).
This page would include the “how we can help you” wording, which should include user numbers, progress maps, code enhancements, etc.–much of which you don’t have as of yet.
Thanks for the input Blaze. That’s basically where I was going, except I was trying to include something to suggest a benefit to the plugin developer (ie answer the “what’s in it for me?” question).
So I was pointing out that ClassicPress represents a whole new market opportunity they can expand into, and potentially pick up more clients. Also suggesting that there are other direct competitors already getting their name down on a list that is becoming a sort of “preferred plugins for CP”.
Do you have specific wording changes to the message we already have on our FAQ page and on this thread? I’ve been waiting for that before putting the updated message on the FAQ page.
I would delete that entire message and replace it with something more like what I posted above. What you have in the FAQ is confusing and (as was said by others, above) implies technical details that aren’t true.
Sorry Blaze. I’m not understanding why there has to be separate and distinct groups. What’s wrong with a user saying: “I use your plug in, I’m moving to CP, you’ll lose me if you don’t support CP, and it’s a growing market and you should think about getting into it.”
I would have thought the more times the plugin developer heard this, the more chance it has of sinking in.
Also with your second group (CP)… who do you mean? The committee? I thought we all were “CP”. I don’t know how these things work - was the committee planning on contacting every plugin developer with a more “official” approach?
Again we are crowd-sourcing our marketing effort here.
You can think of this as a constraint or a limiting factor on the kinds of messages we can send out. I am going to be working full-time on ClassicPress infrastructure and development tasks at least until we launch v1, and many of the committee members are in similar situations.
I can speak for both the marketing team and the committee to say that there is no possible way for us to contact every plugin developer with an “official” approach. We just don’t have that kind of time or manpower in the near term. @ozfiddler, I like the way you’ve worded it here – we are all CP and if each of us takes action in whatever way we can, we can generate the momentum we need.
@Blaze, I understand what you’re saying here and in an ideal world I see why you think two separate messages would be best. However, knowing that we don’t have the resources to reach out in an “official” capacity, this is why we’re encouraging the community to do so.
This was mentioned right at the beginning, and I think it’s valid. I also think it’s just fine for users to mention it… which really isn’t too far off from what @Blaze is suggesting –
We need to word it more positively than that, and I think @ozfiddler has done a great job with it. I think a little editing to shorten up and guard against tl;dr is in order but other than that, I like the tone this last version takes.