30 Jul 2026
Drupal.org aggregator
Metadrop: How to automate WordPress-to-Drupal content migration with WordPress Migrate SQL
Some WordPress sites reach a point where the content model no longer fits the organization's needs. Custom content types, custom entities, and custom fields become necessary to represent internal data precisely, and Drupal supports all three, shaping that data with full flexibility.
Other sites reach that point because of AI. Drupal has built a strong AI ecosystem over recent years, enabling integrations of every needed type: content creation, accessibility checks, RAGs, among others. These are the two situations behind most WordPress-to-Drupal migrations: an architecture the site has outgrown, or an AI integration WordPress cannot support natively.
The challenge of migrating WordPress content to Drupal
The core challenge in a WordPress-to-Drupal migration is migrating the content itself. WordPress sites may host thousands of pieces of content that need to be moved to the Drupal site.
A full migration project runs through several phases: redesigning the site if needed, building the new architecture, and creating a Drupal node for every WordPress post or page. Creating the content is where the real work concentrates, since every image, every user, and every translation has to make it across, on top of adapting content to a different format defined by the new architecture.
A manual content migration is not viable due to its high costs and risks. Handled by hand, this work is prone to human error. A single error is easy to fix, but a…
30 Jul 2026 6:15am GMT
29 Jul 2026
Drupal.org aggregator
Dries Buytaert: Responsibility follows control
An AI model does not decide what data it can access, which tools it can use, or whether it can act without approval. People make those decisions at different points. Upstream, a model developer trains and tests the model and decides whether and how to release it. Downstream, a developer builds the model into a system, connects that system to data and tools, and decides whether a person must review its proposed actions before they take effect.
Those choices determine whether harm is possible at all. So when harm occurs, responsibility should fall on those who controlled the relevant choices. That responsibility may be shared: model developers control training and release, product builders control permissions and deployment, and users control deliberate misuse.
Responsibility should follow meaningful control.
That principle is missing from much of the debate over open-weight AI models, which often treats the decision to release a model as the only one that counts.
Axios recently reported that United States officials had considered measures that could restrict American companies from using Chinese open-weight models. Open-weight models make their trained parameters available for others to download, modify, and run on their own infrastructure, without going through the company that built them.
More than 230 companies and organizations have since signed an industry letter defending open weights. After critics accused Anthropic of supporting a ban on open-weight models, Dario Amodei published a statement denying that position. He described open-weight models that do not have dangerous capabilities as a public good and supported mandatory safety testing for sufficiently capable models, open or closed.
The disagreement is less about whether open weights can create risk than about when those risks justify restricting a release, and whether restrictions would improve safety or mainly concentrate power in the largest AI labs.
I am firmly in the open-weights camp. I have run and compared open-weight models, argued that digital sovereignty depends on who controls software, not where it comes from, and believe organizations should control their infrastructure and data instead of depending on a handful of providers.
I also believe consequential algorithms need oversight. More than a decade ago, I argued that we would eventually need something like an FDA for software. The harder question is where responsibility for that oversight should lie.
Open-weight models unbundle control
With hosted, closed-weight models from providers such as Anthropic and OpenAI, the provider typically keeps the weights private, controls how customers access the model, and decides when to update the hosted service.
Open weights can separate those roles. One organization creates and releases the model. A repository such as Hugging Face hosts and distributes the weights. Another team might fine-tune them. A product builder incorporates the model into a product and connects it to data, tools, and users.
Each team controls something different. Because open weights unbundle control, it becomes harder to say who is responsible when harm occurs.
A model developer controls the training process, capability testing, documentation, and release decisions. A repository controls what information it displays about a model's origin, which security checks it performs on uploaded files, and which access restrictions it provides or enforces. A product builder controls what data and tools the resulting system can reach, which actions require human approval, and what gets logged.
Control is not the only thing that matters, but it shows who could still have changed the outcome. When harm involves AI, several actors may bear responsibility for the same incident because each controlled a different opportunity to prevent it.
A lesson from Drupal and Open Source
Like open-weight models, Drupal's code can be copied and changed without asking anyone's permission. A site owner could use it to spread misinformation or operate a fraudulent website. The site owner controls the content and operation of the site and is responsible for those choices. The Drupal project is not responsible merely because someone used its code.
But the Drupal project controls other decisions. When someone privately reports a security vulnerability, the Drupal Security Team follows a coordinated disclosure policy. It keeps the issue private while a fix is prepared. Once a security release is available, the team publishes an advisory and tells site owners to upgrade. The timing of that disclosure can give site owners a fair chance to protect themselves.
The same distinction applies to AI. Responsibility should follow the decisions each actor controls.
The product is where capability receives authority
A model generates outputs. An agent is a software system that uses a model to work toward a goal, often by calling tools and taking actions. The people who build and configure the agent decide what it can access, which actions it can take, and when it needs a person's approval.
In a coding agent such as Claude Code, a model can generate a database command. Whether that command can run depends on the tools and permissions the agent provides, as well as the access allowed by the computer, network, and database.
A content management agent can propose deleting an article. The content management system (CMS) determines whether the agent has permission to delete it, whether the deletion is reversible, and whether the action is recorded.
Permissions, isolation, audit logs, rate limits, human approval, and rollback are not merely engineering details. They determine who has control at the point where harm can still be prevented. That is why AI governance is becoming an essential part of product architecture.
How should government regulate AI?
Deciding who should answer after harm is the easier half of this, even when the answer is not obvious. The harder half is deciding what government should require before any harm has happened.
If control and responsibility are distributed across several actors, government rules should be distributed across them too. This is not a new idea. We already regulate many technologies this way.
More than a decade ago, when I argued for something like an FDA for software, I had drug approval in mind. I no longer think that is the right model. The FDA approves a drug for one or more intended uses, while a general-purpose model may be used for many different purposes.
Cars are a better comparison. The government sets safety standards, manufacturers certify that their vehicles meet them, and drivers are licensed separately. Manufacturers must also report safety defects and conduct recalls when required. Alcohol is regulated in layers too. Bars need a government license that they can lose, and in many US states a bar can be liable for harm caused by serving someone who is visibly drunk.
Each rule targets the actor who controls a particular decision. I would take the same layered approach to AI.
For most risks, government should regulate the products and services that put a model to work. Those rules might limit what data and tools an AI system can access, require human approval for consequential actions, or require those actions to be recorded.
Blocking a model's release is a much stronger step. For an open-weight model, that means preventing the developer from publishing the weights. For a closed model, it could mean preventing the provider from offering access.
I would support that only when safeguards in products and rules governing their use could not prevent a serious danger in time. The three-part test below applies only to this exceptional step, not to AI regulation in general.
Three questions before blocking a model's release
The strongest argument for restricting open-weight releases is that they are difficult to reverse. The UK AI Security Institute notes that safeguards can be removed and that released weights can be redistributed and run privately beyond the original developer's monitoring.
If a model made catastrophic harm much easier, its release could be the last moment anyone had meaningful control. By catastrophic, I mean mass-casualty or comparably systemic harm, not ordinary product failure, fraud, or abuse.
Before blocking a model's release, a government should be able to answer yes to three questions:
-
Would releasing it make catastrophic harm substantially easier? The comparison should be with closed models and other tools people can already access.
-
Would safeguards applied when the model is deployed or used fail? They might be ineffective, easy to bypass, or simply arrive too late.
-
Would blocking the release materially reduce the danger? A restriction should reduce the risk, not merely move it to another country or distribution channel.
The third question is the one I expect people to argue with. Slowing an attacker down has value even if you cannot stop them. But if the same model remains available from another country or distribution channel, a ban costs defenders a tool they can inspect and run themselves while taking almost nothing away from the attacker.
As of July 2026, I have not seen public evidence that an open-weight model has crossed this threshold. It will eventually be crossed, which is why I still think meaningful regulation is coming.
For now, I would allow publication and place obligations where control already exists: on model creators for testing and release decisions, on distributors for provenance and file integrity, on product builders for permissions and deployment, and on users for deliberate misuse.
This approach also protects competition. A regulatory regime that only the largest labs can satisfy could protect them from competition without necessarily making anyone safer. It could also push organizations toward depending on a handful of providers for infrastructure they cannot inspect.
Open weights do not eliminate control. They distribute it. Regulation should follow that structure: place obligations on each actor at the point where harm can still be prevented, and block publication only when release would make catastrophic harm substantially easier, downstream safeguards could not contain it, and a restriction would materially reduce the danger.
29 Jul 2026 9:27pm GMT
Drupal Association blog: Why We Contribute: The Philosophy Behind 1xINTERNET's Top-Tier Drupal Status
This is a guest post from the incredible team at 1xINTERNET, a Top-Tier Drupal contributor and digital agency headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.
When the Drupal Association announced that 1xINTERNET had become one of the world's Top-Tier Drupal Contributors, it was a proud moment for the company. Reaching the highest level of contribution recognition places 1xINTERNET among a select group of organisations helping shape the future of one of the world's leading open-source content management systems.
Yet, ask anyone inside the company about the achievement, and you'll hear the same response: becoming a Top-Tier Contributor was never the ultimate goal.
Instead, it is the natural outcome of more than a decade of believing that if you build your business on open source, you should help build open source itself.
For over thirteen years, 1xINTERNET has invested in the Drupal ecosystem, not only by delivering digital platforms for clients, but by contributing code, maintaining projects, sponsoring community events, supporting governance, leading strategic initiatives and encouraging employees to actively participate in the community.
Today, the company sponsors more than 500 hours of Drupal contribution every month, actively supports more than 85 Drupal projects, has sponsored over 50 Drupal events, and has contributed to hundreds of issues across the Drupal ecosystem. Those numbers tell one story. The people behind them tell another.
Contribution isn't only about strengthening Drupal, it creates real value for the organisations that choose Drupal as the foundation for their digital platforms. We spoke with Baddý Breidert, Christoph Breidert and James Tillotson about why contributing matters, how it benefits clients, and why they believe giving back is essential to building better digital experiences.
Photo of James, Christoph, and Baddy
Building the future instead of following it
For 1xINTERNET CEO Baddý Breidert, contributing to Drupal has always been part of the company's identity.
"It represents over a decade of dedication to the Drupal project," she says. "I've worked with Drupal since 2006 and been actively involved in the community since 2013. Being recognised as one of the top three Drupal companies globally validates the expertise and sustained effort our team has invested over the years."
But the motivation goes much deeper than recognition.
Instead of simply following the direction of Drupal, 1xINTERNET believes in helping shape it. Since Drupal is the technological foundation behind many of the company's digital platforms, contributing to its future isn't viewed as optional, it's viewed as a responsibility.
That philosophy influences almost every decision the company makes. Rather than waiting for new features, improvements or innovations to arrive, the team actively participates in creating them.
Managing Director Christoph Breidert describes it simply.
"We don't just build with Drupal; we help influence where the platform is going next."
It's an approach that benefits not only the Drupal community, but every organisation that chooses Drupal as the foundation for its digital future.
Open source is built on collaboration
Although contribution often means writing code, the three leaders agree that it's ultimately about something much bigger.
Open source succeeds because thousands of people collaborate, share knowledge and solve problems together. Every contribution, whether it's code, documentation, testing, mentoring, event organisation or strategic leadership, helps strengthen the ecosystem for everyone.
For Christoph, this spirit of reciprocity sits at the heart of open source.
"If you build digital solutions using an open-source project but choose to remain on the sidelines, you miss the opportunity to influence the tools you rely on," he explains. "Open source is built on shared knowledge, and contributing back is simply part of how we work."
That collaborative mindset is equally visible throughout 1xINTERNET's culture.
IxINTERNET's UK Growth Manager James Tillotson sees open source as an extension of how the company works internally.
"We don't hoard knowledge," he says. "We share it to raise the baseline for everyone, which in turn allows us to keep innovating."
Rather than viewing contribution as something separate from day-to-day work, it's embedded in the way teams learn, collaborate and continuously improve.
Contribution isn't separate from client work
One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding open source is that contribution somehow competes with client work.
The reality, according to the team, is exactly the opposite.
James puts it bluntly.
"Contribution is client work."
When developers fix a bug in Drupal core or improve functionality that thousands of websites rely on, every client benefits, not just today, but for years to come.
Christoph agrees.
"If you're not involved in building the technology, you're always reacting instead of leading."
Technology evolves quickly. Artificial intelligence, digital experience platforms, accessibility, security and content management continue to change at an unprecedented pace. Agencies that simply consume technology are forced to wait for innovation. Agencies that contribute help create it.
Baddý believes that's one of the company's greatest strengths.
"Contribution allows us to lead initiatives like Drupal AI, ensuring we aren't just consumers of the technology but creators of it."
Instead of adapting after the market changes, 1xINTERNET helps shape those changes from within.
Driving innovation through Drupal AI
Perhaps nowhere is that philosophy more visible than in Drupal AI.
As Product Lead for Drupal AI, Christoph has been deeply involved in defining its roadmap, working alongside developers from around the world to build practical AI capabilities directly into Drupal.
For him, watching Drupal AI evolve from an ambitious idea into one of the platform's most exciting capabilities has been one of the defining milestones of the company's contribution journey.
"It's been incredible to collaborate with a global community to build something that will help shape the future of the web."
The significance goes beyond technical innovation.
Because 1xINTERNET helps build Drupal AI, its teams understand the technology long before it becomes mainstream. They know what's coming, how it works and how organisations can use it responsibly.
James, who contributes to the Drupal AI Marketing Initiative, believes this creates a significant advantage for clients.
"Our clients have access to the latest innovations because we're involved in creating them."
Innovation isn't something clients wait for. It's something they experience alongside the people helping build it.
Better contributions create better client solutions
Although many clients may never see the code being contributed to Drupal, they experience its impact every day.
Active contributors develop a much deeper understanding of the platform than those who simply implement it.
Because the team understands Drupal's architecture, roadmap and future direction, they can make better long-term decisions for every project.
"Our clients receive stable and modern solutions without having to manage the underlying complexity," Christoph explains. "By maintaining our contribution status, we act as a direct pathway to web innovation."
That means fewer surprises, more sustainable architectures and platforms designed to evolve instead of becoming outdated.
James believes clients increasingly recognise that value.
"They know we're not simply using Drupal, we're helping steer where it's going."
Trust has become a competitive advantage
Contribution also creates something that's difficult to measure but incredibly valuable: trust.
When organisations invest in large scale digital platforms, they aren't simply buying technology. They're choosing partners who will help them navigate years of future development.
Being recognised as one of the world's leading Drupal contributors provides confidence that 1xINTERNET isn't standing on the outside of the ecosystem, it's helping lead it.
Baddý has seen this become increasingly important during procurement processes.
More organisations now actively look for suppliers who contribute back to the technologies they depend on. Public sector organisations and enterprise businesses increasingly view contribution as evidence of technical excellence, long-term commitment and sustainability.
James has experienced this while expanding 1xINTERNET's presence in the United Kingdom. "When entering a new market where people don't yet know your brand, your contribution footprint becomes a global passport. The Drupal community already knows who you are."
That credibility opens doors long before a first meeting takes place.
Supporting digital sovereignty
For Christoph, contribution is also connected to a much broader movement taking place across Europe and beyond.
As organisations become increasingly concerned about vendor lock-in, proprietary platforms and ownership of their data, open-source software is becoming strategically more important than ever.
By contributing to Drupal, companies don't simply improve software, they strengthen an independent digital ecosystem that organisations can trust.
"Businesses increasingly want digital sovereignty," Christoph says. "By actively contributing to Drupal, we're helping build a secure and independent IT landscape that organisations can rely on."
It's a perspective that positions contribution not only as technical work, but as an investment in the future of open digital infrastructure.
A culture that attracts exceptional people
Contribution doesn't only benefit clients.
It also shapes the people who choose to work at 1xINTERNET.
The company actively encourages employees to contribute code, maintain projects, organise events, mentor others and share knowledge across the community.
For many developers, that's exactly the environment they're looking for.
"Top developers want to work on things that matter," James says. "We offer them a stage, not just a desk."
Christoph agrees.
Many developers are motivated by solving meaningful problems that have an impact far beyond a single client project.
For Baddý, contribution creates something equally valuable: a culture of continuous learning.
By collaborating with some of the best Drupal developers in the world, the entire team continually raises its own standards, creating an environment where innovation and professional growth go hand in hand.
Looking ahead
Becoming a Top-Tier Drupal Contributor isn't viewed as a finish line.
Instead, it's another milestone in a much longer journey.
The company plans to continue investing heavily in Drupal AI, supporting the wider community, encouraging employees to contribute and helping organisations embrace open-source innovation with confidence.
Christoph hopes to make Drupal AI even more accessible through practical demonstration environments that allow organisations to experience its capabilities with a single click.
James wants to strengthen the connection between enterprise organisations and the open-source community, demonstrating that open source can successfully support even the most ambitious digital transformation projects.
Baddý remains focused on investing in people, community leadership and the long-term health of the Drupal ecosystem.
More than contribution
Ultimately, becoming a Top-Tier Drupal Contributor isn't really about rankings, badges or recognition.
Those are simply the visible results of years of consistent investment.
The real achievement is building a company where contribution is part of everyday work, where sharing knowledge is expected, collaboration is celebrated, and innovation is something created together rather than consumed.
For 1xINTERNET, contributing to Drupal has never been about giving something away.
It's about helping build a stronger platform, a stronger community and better digital experiences for everyone who depends on Drupal.
Because when the platform grows stronger, so do the organisations, developers and communities that build upon it.
29 Jul 2026 12:00pm GMT