Minute on a Common? Understanding of Community Guidelines

RantWoman has been asked whether she is willing to agree to the Minute of Common Understanding of Community Guidelines. RantWoman has dumped the text of this Minute on a common understanding... here because the document cannot be found at the current version of the UFM website If this is the best anyone can do and it is supposed to apply to everyone, not just to RantWoman, RantWoman would tartly suggest posting it publicly. On the other hand, PERHAPS Friends would be willing to try working WITH RantWoman; perhaps a revision might emerge that more fully speaks to what RantWoman understands of  quakerism even in this fragile beset community.

RantWoman expects here only to make a few key points and then to leave point by point work for another forum. 

RantWoman notes reference at the beginning to Quaker processes serving for hundreds of years. RantWoman notes absence of any reference to the Quaker concept of continuing revelation, a concept highly relevant in evolving practices that nurture individual gifts which arrive wrapped in widerly varying abilities and disabilities as we weave together gifts to strengthen community.

 RantWoman enthusiastically believes in shared guidelines to support and nurture community. RantWoman would not mind in the least if this document had included specific references to Faith and Practice or processes for addressing the mishmash of concepts bounced over.

RantWoman finds much in this document that she has no problem with even though the aspirational aspects could perhaps be more fully expressed.

RantWoman also finds points that are mutually contradictory, sloppily drafted and involve concepts which may or may not be understood by others. 

RantWoman notes references to clearness committees, a point discussed in a separate post.

To be blunt, RantWoman is seasoning some experiences that mean she cannot blithely and automatically sign onto these guidelines if they involve swallowing continuing patterns of abuse and silencing, tolerating thoughtless behavior that endangers her and/or others' physical safety, and stalls in lack of TIMELY progress on pathway for continuing revelation about topics such as the technological issues essential for RantWoman's ability to function.

RantWoman also needs to note vigorous objections to the process of creating this document. This document was slapped together in a Meeting for Business from which RantWoman was excluded after a previous Meeting for Business where RantWoman was called in rather challenging form to speak to matters of disability. RantWoman stands by her call to speak. RantWoman stands by the appropriateness of articulating her concern in Meeting for Business. RantWoman is sorry for making the clerk so angry that she stomped out of the room, a point RantWoman did not even realize until someone told her later. Only recently has someone been able to articulate that it was the end of Meeting for Business, people including RantWoman were tired and hungry and RantWoman's comment was not going to change anything in the short term anyway. 

One post relating to the Meeting for Business in question Tenants Transparency Trust post

Another post that encapsulates also another transparency point where RantWoman would be THRILLED if other voices spoke of her concerns so that RantWoman did not have to do all the talking.

Stewardship Due Diligence

That post contains a link about the original business meeting.

RantWoman's bigger process concern: this minute was slapped together in a month and looks to RantWoman like retaliation for speaking out about disability. On the other hand, the clearness committee on disability had a minute ready for MONTHS to bring to Meeting for Business about creating an Ad-hoc committee on Disability. The committee was only created after UFM says it released RantWoman from membership.  under these circumstances NO ONE can release RantWoman either from moral obligation to speak or from call to continue to try to draw out better tendencies among a community that has LONG nurtured RantWoman.

But RantWoman, the Guidelines? Yes or No? 

More Yes than No and yet some really hard NO's. and HOPEFULLY room to continue to work on...

But RantWoman, we don't have time....

RantWoman has said more than enough for today. Either RantWoman will say more herself another day or she will give in to hordes of barfing bedbugs demanding to deviate from their usual Leap day cycles in light of the pandemic and threatening to take over her fingers...

RantWoman, STOP. Can we all breathe?