This page summarizes my conclusions from reading the various opinions on the RfC.
A total of 444 !voters commented on the proposal. The number of supporters was 276 while 149 editors explicitly opposed the proposals. 19 'neutral/abstain' comments were without supporting or opposing the proposal. This translates to:
(The main support arguments are listed above in the Preliminaries section. I'm assuming that most !voters in this section supported on that basis and am therefore only listing the main additional thoughts of support !voters here.)
My decision is that the RfC should be closed as "no consensus". The primary reason is that WP:V is an important policy document on wikipedia and changes to it should only be made with strong community support. A 65% (or 62.5%) level of support does not provide that necessary degree of comfort. Additionally, it appears that many editors, on both sides of the aisle, believe that the changes are a policy change rather than a mere clarification. Since that was not the intent of the changes, and since policy is, in the final analysis, solely contained in wording, I suggest that going back to the drawing board is probably a good idea regardless of the level of support.
However, I believe that the RfC itself has been very useful. While it is hard to gauge consensus for specifics, there are several useful takeaways that should help guide the next steps in this process.
It would be disingenuous to say that, after reading everything twice over, I have no opinions of my own. So here they are.
Surprisingly (to me anyway), I'm unable to decide whether I would have supported or opposed the changes. I believe that the purpose of the changes is clarification, not a policy change, and much of the clarification provided agrees with my interpretation of the policy so I'm not uncomfortable with the changes. After reading the comments on the RfC, it is more than clear to me that the policy needs clarification. The fact that the same words can be interpreted to mean that we seek only truth and that we don't seek the truth at all is a clear reflection on the confusion in the minds of the editors. That a significant number of editors believe that the encyclopedia embodies, or should embody, 'truth' was also interesting. That tells me that the definition of truth is fungible and we, as a group, either need to be clear on what we mean by it or not use it at all. On the other hand, I also agree many of the oppose !voters that the new wording is unclear (I guess it reflects the fact, or should I say 'truth', that it is a compromise). I'm also troubled by the fact that many editors - on both sides - seem to think that the policy itself is changing (though I don't see that at all). Would I have !voted on the support or oppose side at the beginning of the RfC? I don't know. But, it is quite clear to me that a change of this magnitude, real or imagined, doesn't (as yet) have the necessary consensus. If this RfC finally closes as 'no consensus', I hope that the initiators of this RfC are willing to go back to the drawing board and revisit the wording. I suggest working to change the wording incrementally. Given the unwieldy number of editors in the project, it might be easier to get consensus on small changes, but that's just a personal thought.