\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