Often we are faced with situations where different parts of our
community want different things. One part wants a particular project
to go ahead. Another sees it as damaging. Some segment wants us to
invest in a certain aspect of our economy, society or environment.
Another segment sees it as a bad use of money.

Eventually a resolution happens. The project goes ahead or it
doesn't. The investment is made or it isn't. But too often getting
to that point is difficult. Relationships are damaged. Positions are
radicalized. Opportunities for mutual benefit are missed. Our
community as a whole loses and we have less capability to make good
decisions in the future.

I believe that SASCI is about addressing this problem. We advocate
for and provide a process where different stakeholders can come
together to understand the idea being discussed, learn about each
other's interests, and explore options that benefit all. By doing so,
I believe SASCI can help lower the temperature of the discussions and
those discussions will result in better relationships and better
outcomes.

The typical way we do this is by organizing a moderated public meeting.
Stakeholders from each perspective get present their understanding and
vision. Questions are asked and answered. The moderator keeps things
civil and encourages shared exploration of new ideas.

However sometimes we're faced with stakeholders who will not engage in
a SASCI process like a moderated public meeting. They lay down
conditions which defeat the purpose of the forum, such as "we will
only be there if so-and-so is not there, or if they don't get to
present", or "we will only present if no one can ask us questions."

I'd like to hear your recommendations on how SASCI should handle such
situations. Should we stay clear of issues where the major
stakeholders aren't prepared to engage in a SASCI process? Should we
accommodate one side or another and not have the qualities of a
typical SASCI process? Should we proceed with a SASCI process even
though one or more stakeholders will not engage? Should we develop
alternatives to the moderated public meeting to still progress
the community discussion of an issue?