[18:01:22] <MacFan4000>	 https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Future_of_Miraheze_Commons could technically be closed today, since the RFC policy only requires 5 days for one affecting a local wiki, and consensus is very clear
[18:28:57] <MirahezeRelay>	 <raidarr> it is surprisingly solid early
[18:30:32] <MirahezeRelay>	 <raidarr> closure will likely be delayed, not for unclear outcome, but because processing it will take some time and there is a shortage of steward energy to perform advanced actions at the moment. If reception, void, kiju, agent do get a moment to execute this might not be the case but considering NA and I, closure would be pushed to early days of august
[19:39:25] <MirahezeRelay>	 <zppix> https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Requests_for_Comment/Meta_user_space_policy could also technically be closed
[19:41:29] <MirahezeRelay>	 <sakurababochka> I didn't realise that one had been opened, I thought it was still in drafting. Must have misread.
[19:48:52] <MirahezeRelay>	 <raidarr> yeah last time I looked was the tail end of drafting
[19:49:00] <MirahezeRelay>	 <raidarr> fast few days I guess
[21:20:22] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej, replying to MacFan4000> I think the argument has previously been made that it's a global RfC by nature since it impacts features available to all Miraheze users (namely the ability to upload files to Commons) but I think the RfC is definitely leaning toward a particular outcome
[21:22:54] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> I would view it like if we had an RfC over whether to get rid of uhhhh Semantic MediaWiki (assuming Tech didn't just do that by fiat)
[21:29:07] <MirahezeRelay>	 <sakurababochka> In fairness tech probably do have cause for that since it causes them the most problems. But as far as I know it's still available by special and exceptionally well-justified request.
[21:30:05] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> SMW is like banned and not banned at the same time
[21:30:44] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pskyechology> we dont want more users and we dont wanna pull the rug on everyone unfortunate enough to already use it
[21:30:57] <MirahezeRelay>	 <sakurababochka, replying to wikitideharej> A confusing condition just like SMW itself.
[21:33:15] <MirahezeRelay>	 <justanotherdarkmodeuser, replying to wikitideharej> A state of limbo...really unfortunate
[21:33:44] <MirahezeRelay>	 <justanotherdarkmodeuser, replying to pskyechology> Huh why can't you guys move em to bucket, just curious
[21:34:25] <MirahezeRelay>	 <pskyechology> that's the same as my latter half of my sentence
[21:35:07] <MirahezeRelay>	 <justanotherdarkmodeuser> [1/2] I mean
[21:35:07] <MirahezeRelay>	 <justanotherdarkmodeuser> [2/2] Does smw does something very special that swapping it with bucket can have major downsides
[21:36:49] <MirahezeRelay>	 <raidarr> among other things I don't imagine you can just throw a converter at it and it comes out behaving right
[21:37:24] <MirahezeRelay>	 <raidarr> or if so that would be rather expensive to the dev time miraheze has available
[21:46:39] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> As far as I know Bucket and SMW work in completely different ways, though I think both implement the same idea of "write data fields in wikitext and they become real data fields like a database"
[21:47:31] <MirahezeRelay>	 <wikitideharej> But SMW is built around being a full-blown semantic database (even though most people don't make full use of it) whereas Bucket and Cargo are more basic relational structures
[23:08:09] <MirahezeRelay>	 <thewwrnerdguy, replying to justanotherdarkmodeuser> [1/2] if you have a template that relies on smw and you suddenly remove smw, the template will break
[23:08:09] <MirahezeRelay>	 <thewwrnerdguy, replying to justanotherdarkmodeuser> [2/2] it's probably not impossible to make any smw stuff work with bucket, but you'd need to spend a lot of time and energy doing that
[23:08:57] <MirahezeRelay>	 <thewwrnerdguy> cargo is probably much less energy to convert because it's more similar to bucket