I fully understand what you mean in your first point AGF gets pushed to its limit at times I am not sure how to get a better response I have had similar experience with RfCs I am hoping that since this would have oversight it would be seen as more serious than an ordinary RfC which would bring some additional comment But thought will need to go into this to see how best to advertise it The lack of interest idea was literally just an idea The thrust of this proposal is that by causing the loudmouths such as me to shut up after presenting their case it would be easier for other parties to discuss the salient points of the issue In my experience important points get lost in the debate as one side or the other will sometimes deliberately drown them out with side issues This is why the role of overseer is crucial The overseer would be required to look out for people doing this and rein them in In that environment a consensus has a better chance However we must have a mechanism by which resolution can be achieved without consensus in a similar way to ArbCom Hence the idea would require an oversight committee to be dubbed OverCom no doubt that would make a final resort decision I suspect that this would usually be in favour of one side or the other but they should perhaps have the option of saying neither is right or both to some extent Just had a thought that may be worth considering It might be a good idea to set up a wikiproject dedicated to this with a view to encouraging people who join to take part in the debates Clearly this would improve the numbers of neutrals