Requests for Comment/Affiliate with Grifkuba

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
  •  Oppose As others have said, I don't see benefit to Miraheze or a reason to be affiliated with commercial wikis setup like Grifkuba. | -- FrozenPlum (Talk / Email) 06:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is unnecessary for Miraheze to be affiliated with Grifkuba as there is no real benefit in doing so (with no disrespect to Grifkuba) and if it were to affiliate with Grifkuba, it would compromise Miraheze's commitment to being non-commercial. centrist16 | | 08:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose So as I read it Miraheze would then be the fallback option for a commercial wiki hosting platform? No, I don't like that idea. Also, like everyone before me, I don't see any benefit for Miraheze. --Soukupmi (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Vague and unclear proposal that leaves me unclear as to what this would actually entail. — Arcversin (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Miraheze is a nonprofit website. If Miraheze affiliates with a commercial website like Grifkuba, then it would defeat the purpose of a nonprofit website. --Mike9012 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Abstain[edit | edit source]

    1.  Abstain I'm actually pretty neutral with this particular RfC, especially since the idea in itself isn't that bad, but then again, the executive decisions are up to both the community and the Stewards. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    2. I see no point to this proposal. Unless the specific benefits can be described from both the perspective of Miraheze and Grifkuba, I'm wary to support any sort of connection between the two services. I struggle to find any real similarity between the two, other than membership in the same general stakeholder group of MediaWiki users as providers of MediaWiki services and providers of wiki farms. At this time, I cannot foresee any benefit to any form of connection, other than the mention of Grifkuba as a similar service by independent users by their own decisions to mention Grifkuba. dross (tcg) 06:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    3.  Abstain I don't really see the point to this either. I have no strong opinions either direction to support or oppose this. However, I believe that the two users above me summarized my thoughts anyways. Hypercane (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    •  Comment: He explained above that maybe this service will not be commercial after merging with Miraheze, I think this is very suspicious to happen, it is difficult. Unfortunately I had to vote against it because Miraheze doesn't share the tables categories together with this wiki, it's worth noting that there are more things to improve in the structure than making the partnership that can't change much. --YellowFrogger (Talk) 04:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I did not say it would merge with Miraheze. Read my definition of "affiliation" in the proposal text. RMV2003 (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment: I believe the topic of partnership is worth discussing, and I do think an RfC is the only way to achieve anything in the vein of a partnership since there is no entity on Miraheze that can simply say 'we're partners now'. My issue, as expressed on CN, lies in the completely nebulous nature of partnership. You do specify suggestions and both of them raise questions; in the sidebar is a rather deep link and one I'm afraid I couldn't support, and an affiliates page, while benign, would go back to questioning the real purpose. In any case it's clear that the majority here do not find the platform compatible in structure with Miraheze to consider either option. It's worth thinking about, though. Perhaps some of the conversation here, or redirected to CN should put a serious eye on what, if anything, could qualify a platform for affiliation or partnership with Miraheze and what form that would take. --Raidarr (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      @Raidarr: Well, there were discussions like these, and at any discretion, this would likely be decided by what the community has to say. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    •  Comment: At present, there is not a consensus for this proposal. On the other hand, there is not consensus against it either, with some users noting they're not opposed to the idea. There appears to be an emerging consensus that it's a bit vague and unclear, and certainly worth discussing, but I don't see early closure as being warranted here. It should, therefore, be permitted to remain open at least a few more days. Closure can be requested at stewards' noticeboard, if needed. Dmehus (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Questions from dross
    •  Question: What are the benefits to a general, neutral "affiliation" as described here? How would such a cooperation specifically benefit the Miraheze community, and how would it specifically benefit the Grufkuba community?
    •  Question: Is there an equivalent or similar decisionmaking process currently occurring on Grifkuba at this time? If not, do you know what the timeframe is regarding the decisionmaking process from their end?
    •  Question: What changes would be made on Miraheze with the success of such an "affiliation"?

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section