Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

FYI - We recently drastically changed the Policy in our Circle and how it operates. The Evernote document was already updated with the changes.

Margaux posted:

I guess you didn't fix that Lead Link problem afterall #zapposceo


Haha. Touche, Margaux!

Andrea Faré posted:

Hi Paul,

very interesting, I have a comment to make about the approach you followed:

If I get it right your Collective Responsibility policy defines additions to the scope of "governance validity", I am not sure it is valid governance to say that a policy can add to the definition of "valid governance".

Isn't it in practice somehow cloning 5.2.2 by extending it to any Circle (besides anchor), by means of an ad-hoc policy?


Yo, Andrea! Thank you for the great questions and pointing that stuff out. I had not considered it previously. Here are some of my thoughts.

1) It is indeed copying 5.2.2. It was a far more simple and efficient way of doing things the way we have been doing it, and has all the checks-and-balances needed for when issues pop up.

2) Definitely makes sense that you can't add stuff to the scope of Governance. However, not only does 5.2.2 do just that, but there is also 3.3.7. The way I read it, we are simply using the same facilitated process within our Governance meeting to make those operational decisions. None of it is actually being captured in GlassFrog by the Secretary, so it does not contradict with that piece, we are just using the process to make a decision. Really, this Policy just distributes the LL authority in a way that anyone can make LL decisions, so long as they use the Integrative Decision-Making Process.


I would love to get your thoughts (and anyone else's) on the matter. Currently, nobody outside our Circle and the Super-Circle has questioned the validity of anything, and both of those Secretaries agree that it is all valid thus far. However, I will keep updating our document as questions come up!