\input tex
\twelvepointconcreteroman

dear new-men-us;

I've been following the sanctuary-residency issue for a while, via the�
Minutes and by talking to residents and ex-residents over the past�
year. Here's my take on things, and potential paths for solutions.

It seems to me that there's a big problem involving ``qualifications''�
(or not) of would-be residents, skills physical and otherwise. One I�
part I see as a process problem, the other an aspect of that.

Briefly, my assumptions: Except during pre-organized gatherings,�
living on or even visiting the land requires responsibility and�
certain skills that must be (but can be) learned, on the part of the�
visitor. Basic sanitation; willingness to do drudge chores; an honest�
assessment of personal skills. The latter is really it -- when people�
believe they have the necessary whatever's to pull it off, but don't.�
For whatever reasons, mainly not knowing. (And f\ae rie paradigm�
sometimes puts stars in many eyes\dots) I think dealing with this�
realistically is a central problem.

First --

I think the residents should be able to {\it choose} (ie.~veto) who�
lives on the land, for tangible reasons. I think the current method�
{\it avoids the real issue} -- which is power, or really the fear that�
the residents will somehow do some terrible and wrong thing. {\it�
Accountability} is the solution, not the customary taking away of�
power when a conflict arises.

In short -- give the residents the {\it power} to choose who lives on�
the land with them. Their {\it responsibility} to a resident-to-be is�
to honestly convey the how's and why's and the need to dig new�
shitters. New (and current!) residents make themselves {\it�
accountable} for tasks they agreed to take on. Residents are {\it�
accountable} ultimately to Nomenus, and f\ae ries at large. Nomenus�
and non-resident f\ae ries {\it trust} the residents to make good�
decisions, and avoid meddling or overriding the residents.

Just as if a f\ae rie can't work within group process, they should�
leave (to learn/re\"evaluate or not), if a resident repeatedly can't�
maintain accountability to the local group (residents), they should�
live elsewhere. Harsh? Less so than inflicting harm on the land and�
added burden to the other residents.

Second --

It's not enough to be well-meaning and spiritually suited. The�
necessary physical skills are required. It is a hard thing to tell�
someone, you don't have enough experience or skills right now to live�
on the land, but ultimately more fair than adding to the burden of�
those already there, and the land itself, just to avoid this�
admittedly hard thing. Great heart is required to disappoint someone�
trying to reach their dreams without hurting. Life is a balance, and�
knowledge in one area doesn't fill in for lack in others. During even�
the most uplifting circles, you occasionally have to get up and take a�
shit.

There may be insufficiently-skilled people that the residents feel�
would be an asset anyways; this should be up to the residents, since�
they would have to carry the extra weight.

I want to see the land develop carefully into a solid, long-term�
radical sanctuary based upon hand, heart and mind. I hope this is�
taken in the spirit it is given. Bye, and see you all soon!

\vfill

\centerline{Tom Jennings / 666 Illinois / San Francisco / CA 94107 USA}
\vskip\parskip

PS: Thanks Rosemary, for turning the minutes into a coherent and {\it�
enjoyable} thing!

\supereject\end
