While I can see the basis for keeping 963, I fail to understand why keeping 1004 is seen as equally important. It has a decent amount of upvotes, sure, but most articles that have been on the site for 15 years have similar amounts. And in those 15 years, there has only ever been one article, tale, or goi format by someone other than bright mentioning its existence. If works such as Ecce Perago and Annon are being deleted and recycled despite their influence due to their harmful content, I do not see why 1004's early slot position should keep it from sharing the same fate when its only claim to fame is being an explicit work written by an AHT-banned author.

This is an extremely good question, of course. I personally really didn't want to keep 1004's slot, and I want to recycle it eventually (and 963 too, tbh). But I was talked into changing my position (and I think rightly) and recommending keeping the slot locked for now.

Basically, because 1004 is lurid and well-known, there are a ton of offsite backlinks and references to it, and it's one of the most harmful pieces Bright ever wrote (in both subtle and unsubtle ways). Another staff member told me that colleagues at their workplace were even putting a 1004 easter egg into their work before being talked out of it!

Freezing the slot (for now) is not even about Bright's influence in this case. I doubt most people even know Bright wrote 1004 — it's infamous simply for being SCP porn, and because of that infamy, has significant malign influence because of its abuse justification narrative.

(However, 1004's text should be entirely deleted IMO. In this case only (so far), I believe any annotations should stand without the text, based on reasoning elsewhere in the thread.)

I'd like to chime in primarily on the response pieces. In an ideal world these will be limited in number, and mostly from victims.

I agree. For many types of response piece, we can't limit it to victims, but should heavily prioritize anything written by victims (anonymous or not).

I also understand critique I've seen on the response pieces concept questioning the value or worrying about uselessness or worse. Some of the responses are in R&C proposal text (understandably potentially missed as it's very long) but we need more elaboration.

For some, see aismallard's post here, and I'll try to add more of my thoughts as well.

I've been considering that we probably need to write up a short list of what we're mostly looking for from response pieces. I've drafted something, will seek feedback, and then post it here for more feedback.

RE: Option A vs Option B - I admit, despite having co-signed the recommendation for Option A, I do prefer Option B based on additional feedback (see aismallard's post as well).

I will probably remain as uninvolved as possible since I am personally uncomfortable with the idea of an official Bright defamation project, as people seem to be proposing - not because it's not warranted but just because it seems like it will counterproductively maximize the attention this issue gets. I figured the plan would be to consign Bright the author and fictional character to obscurity as much as possible, but I suppose if we refuse to go full damnatio memoriae route we should have an official response to go up on the site, I was just assuming this would be more about informing people of the facts rather than the more creative options people are discussing here. There's nothing stopping people from posting those kind of articles if they want to (you could say that some already have been by individual authors, although I understand we're talking about something different to Lord of the REDACTED and Expiration Date here).

I'll admit that on a personal level and in a very selfish way I just want this to be over as soon as possible, but I suppose nothing ever ends.

Unsure if this is a productive contribution to the conversation, sorry if not.

I think the suggestion of one singular page for everything is excellent and should be adopted.

However, some reactions to the question are approaching the matter as if we are opening relevant pages to whatever random nonsense people want to post, which is most definitely not the intent. Additionally, there is poor understanding of what exactly "response piece" means.

To quote the proposal:

What will opening pages to response pieces look like?
Opening to response pieces isn't the same as just opening up the page to anything (e.g. the SCP-001 page which allows any additions), but would be under careful staff oversight. That is, even posting an article on the page will likely not be permitted until staff has (through a process to be established in discussion and voting) exercised oversight.

In practice what this would mean is (to give one example using SCP-963) staff would reject an article that is just a restatement of Bright's version with the serial numbers filed off (and in a way that furthers the article’s harm), but accept an article that, in some way, addresses the fact that SCP-963, Bright (character), and other Bright articles were used by Bright (author) to cause harm.

One example of an acceptable response piece might be a work by a victim using Bright the character, where said character is engaged in malicious behavior which is portrayed as appropriately villainous and non-aspirational, and allows the author to express their feelings and experiences through literature. (This type of work would not be limited to victims, to, among other reasons, avoid victims being unduly targeted, but work that staff does not know comes from a victim would receive more scrutiny by necessity.)

This would serve the purpose of reframing Bright (character and author) as harmful (the "counter" part of "Remove and Counter") as opposed to the glorious portrayal that Bright tried very hard to maintain.

A response piece could also be an out-of-universe essay, either discussing the article as a work of fiction, mechanisms of how abuse and harm occur, or a history on Bright and their use of the work.

Another possible response piece could be an article which doesn't touch Bright as a character at all, and instead is a telling which is:

1. Entirely removed from Bright's portrayal of concepts and characters, and their endorsement of (harmful) concepts
2. While also being very keenly aware that their work does not exist in a vacuum and must avoid replicating harmful ideas or unintentionally bringing fame to Bright's legacy or concepts.

This is where staff review is crucial, since any old draft may not have these attributes, even if the draft per se is not "harmful" in the way that the Bright proposals effort used it (as they were assessing a more direct form of harm).

A big part of this, again, is to avoid letting Bright "have the last word", by staff having the slot entirely locked to being used for community erosion of Bright's legacy. We aim to do this by both addressing Bright's harm and introducing concepts meant to deprecate Bright's influence with distinctly non-Bright non-harmful articles, we can counter existing harm and remove future potential for harm.

Our plan is to permit Bright victims a hand in whatever work review process exists. It would be completely voluntary on their part whether they want to participate (a victim, or any community member for that matter, is totally justified in wanting to never deal with Bright or their works again), but there should be the opportunity for commenting on response works and trying to identify areas (even subtle ones) where a response work is not conforming to the properties elucidated above.

The end goal is to completely erode and supersede Bright's legacy.

This makes quite clear that the sensitivity of the matter is paramount. In this light, perhaps reframing options A and B would make things more clear:

Option B suggests forming a staff working group who is responsible for validating works prior to posting. This has the advantage of significantly decreasing the risk that a harmful article is posted as a "response", but involves the creation of what could be described as an editorial board, which is highly unconventional for our site. Among the concerns are that this group may unfairly stifle legitimate works out of an excessive sense of caution, or may introduce improper editorialization. Such a group allows enhances the ability for staff to actively consult with relevant and willing Bright victims

Option A suggests allowing users to post responses themselves directly, and link them from the appropriate page(s) directly, whether themselves or anonymously. The staff working group would instead evaluate if posted articles are acceptable or need to be removed. This lessens concerns about issues with the writing process, but makes the possibility of (temporarily) seeing improper works higher, which is significant given the stakes.

Overall, we could characterize Option A as being more reactive and within existing site convention, while Option B is more proactive and less precedented. However, given that the Bright situation overall is not very precedented, such a measure may be reasonable.

Given this context, hopefully the recommendation for Option A makes more sense.

This said, I am of the opinion that Option B is the superior choice. It's an unusual arrangement, but ultimately I think we need to proactively enable the staff to ensure that response pieces are serious and material. We can't avoid editorial influence in either respect, and there are definitely areas where explicit preferencing is preferable, most notably in that Bright victims should have higher priority in writing responses, while still protecting their privacy (an article could be posted anonymously, yet its author verified as a victim but known only to the anonymous articles subteam and the working group).

Furthermore, tacticalnecromancy as pointed out, messages from victims about the harm of a piece count as responses. Staff can also directly include such messages within the disclaimer section of an article itself. Extending this, we can also have victim-written reimaginings / concept deprecation pieces, which are also responses.

It is also perfectly acceptable that, for some removed Bright work, it may have no responses. This is not a case where we should rush to fill any old thing, this is simply about providing relevant aggrieved individuals to be able to discuss what has happened to them in a way to contribute to Bright's deprecation.

Notably:

especially if we can inundate it with enough remarks (or maybe do special formatting?) to make copy-and-pasting a pain in the rear end.

Absolutely. Something I regret not having enough time to include in the proposal text (only discussed in staff chat) is the text of 963 in particular can and should be chock-full of annotations (which several of us can help compose, including me).

As for the lifetime issue - you raise a great point. R&C doesn't directly address this because it's too hard to future forecast, but I am inclined to recommend keep one single central page for lifetime (using BAD_DATA's incredibly good proposal improvement suggestion to keep all text, annotations, response link etc to one page), so that we don't raise harmful intrigue in the future, but eventually remove that page's links to anywhere else.

This also means eventually releasing SCP-963's slot to something new, and SCP-1004 assuming we retain the slot as well, and finally there will be no Bright links left in the SCP Series.

We don't have to lock this in now, but this is what I want, and many of us want, this proposal to lead to down the line.

Also notably:

Solo-authored pages should be replaced with a message as to the piece's harm (the "response" as I interpreted it) centering victims' statements.

R&C doesn't make this explicit as written - but this is extremely good to point out.

Under R&C, all retained text has a "disclaimer." This "disclaimer" should include and center victims' statements on the piece's harm (as victims desire).

This would still be the case for the "one singular page for all retained text", approach, just multiple disclaimers and statements on the page.

This fills some of the intended role of 'response pieces' as well — some types of response pieces could be better handled this way, or by linking to a victim's comment elsewhere on the site with permission, etc.

The idea of using one singular page for all retained text, all annotations, any/all response piece links, etc, is a very good idea. I believe it is simply better than the solution I had suggested in R&C.

On What Text To Retain:

I do believe (and laid out in the proposal) that keeping the (annotated) text of Bright's other most influential articles would be beneficial (except probably SCP-1004). That said, I also think annotating SCP-963's original text will have by far the highest impact.

For the rest of the (very few) articles suggested for text retainment and annotation, it's more a matter of "how much more discomfort are we willing to endure from keeping the text, and how much is it worth it?" versus "how much do we want to risk raising more intrigue than already necessary from getting rid of most of Bright's works" (which is, of course, extremely necessary).

Some of the rationale for each proposed retained article is listed in R&C directly - we should discuss more detail as well that we weren't able to include due to time constraints (but now is the time to do so, since now is when we select which ones we will risk keeping versus removing). I will work on a follow-up for this.

On Excerpts:

One notable disagreement: I believe if we preserve only specific excerpts, that will backfire and raise intrigue, leading people to seek out the full text elsewhere (and then more connected Bright works which they otherwise likely wouldn't seek out), due to human nature.

So I do strongly believe we should include the full text of whatever we do keep.

The major exception is SCP-1004. As several others have raised, 1004 fans are not really Bright fans. There is much less potential audience overlap. If they go looking for 1004, they'll likely only go looking for 1004. No extra intrigue is raised, no significant additional harm is risked.

I propose that any response pieces created are appended to one singular page, the revamped Bright note. In fact, I believe that this page should serve as the primary place to get information on Bright and their harm, including an explanation as to what happened, annotations on the articles, and approved response pieces. 963 and any other necessary articles would redirect here (note that the number of these articles should be kept to a minimum) with all potential response pieces listed here. This allows people to make responses to the situation as a whole as well as to individual pages.

I think it is also important to put down what an response piece actually is. How I see it, it will be presented as primarily out of universe retrospectives from victims and other people who were affected by Bright in some way. Maybe it would include some way of writing it in a more creative way (this is a creative writing site, after all), but it would have to be curated in some way. Obviously, we cannot police fully if someone decides to write a piece that is inspired by the situation concerning Bright, but we can and should curate what would go on this page. In the context of having the Bright note as the most encompassing place to get information concerning Bright, I would be in favour of OPTION B.

I want to point out too: most SCP fans are not on mainsite. A lot of people are incredibly misinformed on the true extent of what Bright did, which is why the whole idea of countering is so important.

For the SCPs, following consensus, these pages will not be deleted immediately — this is to avoid causing further issues, so that harm is minimized. Instead, slots will be released randomly by staff, as was seen with the Kalinin deletion. Victims are able to reach out to the Bright working group and request a slot, such that they may write a replacement piece. We highly encourage those who feel comfortable to reach out. Currently, SCP-590 is earmarked for a replacement piece.

As well as the proposal of opening up 1004 and 963 for response pieces:

SCP-963 would be annotated by both staff and willing victims of Bright, highlighting the harm within the text, and their impact. The page would be opened to response pieces.

SCP-1004 would have the text removed, and a disclaimer added. The page would be opened to response pieces.

Two weeks ago, a week-long discussion was made for people to voice their opinions on the proposals. The vast majority of people both on the o5 thread and the mirror thread on the site forum voiced their support for the R&C proposal. A week ago, the voting thread was opened, and 45 out of 54 staff voted for R&C. Throughout this whole process the text of the proposals were available in full, including an explicit step-by-step breakdown where it was specifically mentioned that this portion of the process would take about 2 weeks to fulfill and require further staff deliberation.

I disagree with the notion of simply removing all pages authored by Bright, as that is effectively Near-Total Removal, which was not the consensus opinion of staff. If there's another voting thread in which people changed their opinions then I would, but I think at this point another round of voting would be unproductive.

Should any of the deleted and recycled pages be handled differently?

No objections.

Should any of the special resolution pages be handled differently?

While I can see the basis for keeping 963, I fail to understand why keeping 1004 is seen as equally important. It has a decent amount of upvotes, sure, but most articles that have been on the site for 15 years have similar amounts. And in those 15 years, there has only ever been one article, tale, or goi format by someone other than bright mentioning its existence. If works such as Ecce Perago and Annon are being deleted and recycled despite their influence due to their harmful content, I do not see why 1004's early slot position should keep it from sharing the same fate when its only claim to fame is being an explicit work written by an AHT-banned author.

Should we release the slots in a different manner?
Should response pieces be curated after posting, or approved in advance?

Addressing both of these together as my response largely overlaps: I disagree that any slots (reserved by victims or not) should be held for response pieces, as I feel it would only encourage harassment and vote brigades towards those articles from fans of Bright's works who perceive them as responsible for deleting those works and replacing them with different versions, even if posted anonymously. If people wish to write response pieces they should be allowed to go ahead, but I don't think the use of the same slot is required as well. Otherwise, I'm fine with the slots being released randomly.

The reason why Remove and Counter was explicit in the distinction between the recommendations for slot recycling vs other recommendations (like page text deletion). Things like SCP-050 are ultimately kind of whatever, there are not huge numbers of people cosplaying SCP-050 or roleplaying; this is 100% not the case for SCP-963. The former can be safely recycled, the latter cannot.

I think we're all in agreement that harmful notorious articles like SCP-963 cannot remain on the site in their formerly uncritical form - but exactly what takes their place is the devil where the details are at and what this thread is for.

Remember, we can always recycle slots later if things change. Doing so now, when tensions on the site are extremely high, is very risky and frankly rather irresponsible. A huge part of why the process has been the way it is (as flawed as it's been) is to avoid a repeat of Bright victims being blamed and harassed for staff action they were not party to, and right now deleting the most notorious slots with no attempt at managing their notoriety means we concede the narrative to whatever the rumor mill produces.

The goal of Remove and Counter is to have a long-term strategy for educating readers, depopularizing and deprecating Bright and their works and concepts, until we reach a point where it is safer to recycle the slot, or take other such actions.

I really don't think that's reasonable for staff to require, which is why I support option A

However, it would not be ethical for staff to force victims to out themselves as such in order to post these response pieces, and therefore it must be open to everyone.

It would be possible to both limit response pieces to victims and preserve those victims' anonymity using the existing anonymous posting process.

My reasoning is this: we have the best chance of communicating the harm this article has caused and therefore preventing future harm if the full text can be found in a place under our control. I'm approaching this from the POV of a hypothetical user who has just learned of 963, perhaps offsite, and is looking for it. We can't control if they end up on the wiki or not but if they do end up on our copy of 963 we should do everything in our power to make sure they don't leave to go looking elsewhere due to the incomplete article. The point being, our copy should be chock full of annotations and warnings of the harm so that this hypothetical user can sate their curiosity without ending up somewhere less concerned about it. I want to also specify, this is not to prioritize user curiosity— it is to work with that curiosity to improve our chances of reducing harm.

Additionally, at present, I do not support the removal of the articles under special consideration. My current opinion is that the R&C proposal itself already sufficiently indicated the utility of the special consideration these articles will be given. I am open to changing my mind on some of the articles if I see a convincing argument to do so, however.

On the solo-authored pieces in question (EX: 963), I think we should take a similar approach to the Bright List (as I believe was planned). I do not think the full text should remain in any form, even for annotations. I believe quotes should be considered in a discussion of the work's harm. I also believe any form of "response" — which I believe would operate best as the form I've mentioned here — needs to take into account victims' wishes and center their voices. That's not to say I believe anonymity should be revoked. That's absolutely dangerous. I just believe we need to center their wishes and perspectives and let them speak on these matters.

I also will remind everyone that multiple victims have spoken out against blanket deletions as an approach because of the harassment they received. The "and counter" is doing heavy lifting here. We need to counter Bright's influence in a way that is both productive and keeps in mind what victims have stated they want.

As far as lifetime… I'm not sure. I think we could keep up a Bright List esque splash message (again, in place of the original) with discussions of harm done for around a year. Once things have distro'd out into the community, we can properly dispose of them.

I may be misunderstanding some plans here, but to summarize my points:

• Solo-authored pages should be replaced with a message as to the piece's harm (the "response" as I interpreted it) centering victims' statements.
• The full text should not be available anywhere. Harmful quotes can be discussed.
• After time has passed, the pages can go through final deletion.

EDIT: These points are made with the effective equivalency of unlisting and deletion. That is to say: do not unlist these pages entirely, but replace them with appropriate messaging. Mann worded it far more succinctly just above this.

While other aspects are up for debate and can be adjusted, 963 should not be included in that, as it is fundamental to the proposal we chose.

As per the Remove and Counter proposal, 52 pages under the 'Works to Be Deleted and Recycled' have been unlisted, with staff placeholders created for relevant pages.

Discussions on how to handle the remaining 8 pages will continue, and we hope to have the situation fully resolved as soon as we can.

Edit: To clarify, I think 963 is the one work that shouldn't be unlisted in accordance with the "counter" aspect of the plan, but I think the rest (including 1004) should be. I do not particularly care for the idea of response pieces and just believe we should let them be open to any contribution that should survive there (outside of slots specifically held for victims, should they choose to pick any in particular). Finally, the 2000 hub should be reattributed asap, and 902 can be dealt with according to the wishes of the coauthor.

For this, I genuinely think bulk actioning them all at once are more effective than freeing them periodically at random - The difference merely being that the influx of reused-slot new SCPs will be slightly more rapid (which will be handled as normally), as opposed to them periodically coming up every now and then and having to re-explain the Duckman purging process.

I believe it is a worthwhile tradeoff to rip off the band-aid immediately as opposed to it weighing on staff effort any longer than necessary.

Removed From SCP Series, SCP-963 and SCP-1004, Retained Tales

For the technical implementation of all these, I highly recommend we use the same block styling as Adult Content Warning, which is staff-controlled, widely used and visually immutable. When put in a collapsible, the entire original wikitext should be in a code block, similar to our deletion message.

Annotation, if any, should be extracted into its own section - we do not need to display the entirety of a work as is.

Removed From SCP Series

Highly against the technical specification of this implementation. The problems are twofold:

1. archived_SCP-321 URL is effectively a bypass of the archived: category protocol, which we have discontinued for any non-staff pages. On its own, this infer no special regards, and is effectively the same as the *Resetting vote counter to zero* proposal, but without actually setting it to zero.
2. Loss of original slug: This is my primary concern - page linked to these slugs, including offsite, will receive no new context if the original pages have been moved, making this an ineffective solution.

Resolution: Batch them with the others and unlist them; using Slug Reservation policy to fill in the URL with splash pages with the same intent as stated. The 001 proposal can be straight unlisted with no further repercussion that is outside of our usual scope.

Edit: After further discussion, all three should be unlisted, either eating the cost of backlink referential integrity and go through with blanket removal, or use the empy slots as the counter.

SCP-963 and SCP-1004

Implementation should be modified - unlist them; using Slug Reservation policy to fill in the URL with splash pages with the same intent as stated. This removes the extant votes of the original pages, which would otherwise inaccurately reflect as highly-regarded.

Response Pieces

The ideal number of response piece should be zero, in my opinion, but staff has no control over how authors choose to respond, so this is a moot point either way. No real actions are needed / Option A is preferred.

The vote chose the Remove and Counter proposal, not Near Total Removal. If we move the 7 special resolution items under deletion and recycling, then there is no tangible difference between the two proposals. The key differences are the annotated versions and the response pieces — this discussion should be framed around which of these aspects we want to apply to each article, rather than abandoning what we already decided.

I do not think staff should be involved in oversight of response pieces beyond our custodial role in enforcing site rules and the vote thresholds.

Edit: I need to clarify my initial position. I do not support the unlisting of 963, but as I am to understand it, there is currently an effort to streamline everything to have a single disclaimer and annotation of all problematic pieces on one page. I support this.

I do not support the unlisting of the 2000 hub nor the coauthored page.

My initial framework of agreement with Dexanote, Rounder, and Kufat was based on the supposition that the core pages of 1004, 963, and the removal of the other works in the list should be actioned immediately. I still strongly support the other provisions of the proposal, but have not had significant energy or direction to contribute any alternative approaches.

nothing in this discussion is a blocker on the vast majority of pages being deleted, yes?

Given that deletion isn't on the table, just unlisting, I'm in agreement with this. If there's a surprise outcome then any applicable pages could just be relisted.

I don't see any real merit in the response pieces and think we should dispense with any involvement in that entirely. I trust the voting system to address anything people feel like posting on the matter.

edit: also, nothing in this discussion is a blocker on the vast majority of pages being deleted, yes? I think this conversation would be better had after that's done in the next day or two.

What is this?

Following the vote, Remove and Counter Bright's Influence was selected as the plan to resolve the Bright works issue.

While there are many aspects that will not change, there are a number of items with alternative resolutions and potential adjustments that we need to discuss. Those items have been isolated below, into a list of decisions — this thread is to discuss the alternative options, and come to a consensus on how to act.

If there is a consensus in how to handle each issue, we will resolve them at the conclusion of this discussion — otherwise, we will have a week of voting to determine the specifics.

Discussion Points/Issues

Specific Resolutions for Bright's Pages

The Remove and Counter proposal provides suggested resolutions for each page by Bright, but staff has the ability to adjust the resolutions for a given page if we feel that it was improperly placed, or does not need to be retained etc.

The following section is broken down into two broad categories: the deleted and recycled pages, and special resolution pages.

Slot Releasing

The proposal does not specify the specific method of slot release for SCPs or tales marked for Deletion and Recycling — based on previous experience, we suggest the following:

• For any tales, once there is consensus, these pages will be deleted immediately, with the slots left empty.
• For the SCPs, following consensus, these pages will not be deleted immediately — this is to avoid causing further issues, so that harm is minimized. Instead, slots will be released randomly by staff, as was seen with the Kalinin deletion.
  • Victims are able to reach out to the Bright working group and request a slot, such that they may write a replacement piece. We highly encourage those who feel comfortable to reach out. Currently, SCP-590 is earmarked for a replacement piece.
  • All other slots will be released in random intervals, without prior announcement. These page deletions will be witnessed by Wiki Admins — as such, wiki administrators are restricted from posting in these slots.

This methodology will allow for finite control, giving victims the chance to reclaim their voice, while reducing the chance for additional harm.

If you feel as though the slots should be handled differently, please comment as such below.

Response Pieces

There are a number of items to discuss regarding response pieces, primarily if we feel as though they are needed. Currently, the list of pages opened to response pieces consists of all special resolution pages excluding SCP-902 and the SCP-2000 Contest Hub, totaling 7 pages.

Additionally, for response pieces, we need to determine as staff if we (A) allow response pieces to be added by any wiki member, with problematic or incorrectly added pages removed by staff, or (B) require that all response pages are reviewed and approved by staff, who add them to each page.

Option A allows for further authorial autonomy, and empowers the community to respond without staff intervention, while potentially resulting in improperly added pages or trolling. Option A is similar to the current process regulating collab logs on the wiki.

Option B requires that staff be involved in this process, and would place the onus on a set group of individuals to determine if a work is a 'valid' response piece. This restricts community responses to what staff approves, which is not inherently problematic, but could be an issue down the road.

The team suggests that Option A is chosen for the 7 pages. Should a given page be subject to repeat vandalism, or should the process pose further complications, we are always able to implement Option B.

Regardless of how the responses are curated, pieces will only be added as responses by the request of the original author.

If you believe that the response pages should be maintained via Option B, or have any other issues regarding the response pieces, please comment as such below.

List of Issues:

For convenience, below is a list of each potential item of discussion, each of which is included in further detail above.

1. Should any of the deleted and recycled pages be handled differently? If there are no objections, the current list will remain.
2. Should any of the special resolution pages be handled differently? If there are no objections, these pages will be handled via their currently outlined resolution.
3. Should we release the slots in a different manner? If there are no objections, the slots will be released randomly, as seen with the Kalinin deletion.
4. Should response pieces be curated after posting, or approved in advance? If there are no objections, the current plan is that pages will be opened in full to response pieces, with staff maintaining them.

This discussion will run for one week. If there are no objections to the planned solutions listed above, then at the conclusion of the week, we will consider those items to have consensus, and they will be resolved as written. If there is not consensus, voting will begin.