:*Regarding a working group to develop the "Responses" section... I don't know that I personally would have a lot of energy for that.  I wanted to work on the article until it was no longer terrible, and I think that goal was largely achieved. The Gorsevsky discussion has perhaps for me been about maintaining that standard. There are refinements the article could use (I'd particularly love to rewrite the "Overview" section but need sources), but they don't seem pressing relative to the need to attend to other aspects of my life. Creating a fuller "Responses" section would be nice, but isn't a priority for me.

I agree with your assessment that "it's hard to learn" is the biggest issue with NVC.  There's also no standardized curriculum for it, and the way it's taught is constantly evolving. 

When it comes to criticism, I wish there could be some distinction between criticizing the core ideas of NVC and criticizing Rosenberg's presentation of it. Though I suppose that's a hard distinction for outsiders to make. There are a few things that Rosenberg says that I don't agree with, or ways he says things that are exaggerated, perhaps to try to shock people into seeing things differently in a teaching context  but none of those are the core of NVC, and other trainers including myself present NVC in ways that don't include those elements that are easy to take exception to, yet which still capture all the core ideas.