Before anyone thinks that I am against the anti-harassment policy, let me state up front that I am not. That said... On Wed, November 6, 2013 7:23 am, Dave Crocker wrote: [snip] > For the anti-harassment policy, we happen to have pretty obvious and > massively strong community support for developing the policy. That we > also have plenty of evidence that some folk will never be satisfied with > whatever text emerges is a distraction. Once those folk have had their > say and the group has discussed their concnerns constructively and hass > attempted to resolve the concerns, we are not obligated to please such > folk. If there is actually "pretty obvious and massively strong support" then there is not only rough consensus, there is some pretty solid consensus. And then there's no need to assign a facilitator to track and resolve issues. We're done. But the sentiment expressed above is unfortunate I think because it dismisses dissent and just pay lip service to addressing the concerns that dissent represents. You're talking about entering into a supposedly consensus building process with the notion that the decision is already made. That's a recipe for just pissing people off. Replace "the anti-harassment policy" with some policy you don't like and then read it again as if I said it to you. Dan.