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