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

HI Fred,

my two cents:

Article 4.2.4 indicates what should happen when a role does not show up in tactical, and that's part of a shared ruleset that really makes this sentence sound weird > "It feels like under the guise of bringing 'visibility' you end up insinuating that people aren’t fulfilling their roles. I think it makes it feel weirdly hostile if things like that surface for the very first time in the context of a public meeting."

Article 4.1.2(b) which is mentioned by 4.2.4 still gives role B a chance to refuse to take on the action by explaining the reason why she shouldn't, she could always then come up with a tension in governance, I wonder if she would really be able to attach such a tension to a specific role with a valid example.

the kind of reasoning she's bringing to the table: (not being at ease with objections/considering tactical as "public meeetings where your reputation is at stake) really screams for  some  coaching in my opinion.

this proposal: "no next action or project can be captured for a role unless they’ve been engaged before the meeting, or are present during the meeting” does not sound valid to me, because it conflicts with aforementioned article, by limiting what a tactical meeting could accomplish.

And that without even looking at the tension behind it (assuming it would be the one she informally expressed  "insinuating that people aren’t fulfilling their roles" which is clearly a personal tension).

I'm curious to find out what others think about this.