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

Hi Tom,

This is very good and common question. In my understanding you are referring to the fact, that somehow "relevant" tensions not grounded in a role but more general in a partners observation (across various roles) are not valid gov input. Actually, the role-based validity criteria came with constitution v3 as far as I recall. 

To my understanding this is still a not well-specified space related to the coupling of partners and the organization. What your proposal is referring to are expectations towards partners (no matter in which role they are acting). IMO the organization itself does not have values, the group of partners might have. Thus it might trigger the need to make explicit what partners can expect of each other apart from role-based accountabilities (such as values and behaviour codes etc.). 

I see several pathways for that. Here's a few: you might create a role that has the accountability to sense into these tensions and process them if needed (eg kind of an elected rep link from the "partner pool" or an HR role). Or you could define a partnership circle (see encode's approach with an association circle here) that specifically holds the purpose of making all the people-related expectations and agreements explicit. Or you could use your partner agreements / contracts to specify what you expect in more detail.

IMO this entire issue is also the trigger for partner pool & partnership circle amendments considered for constitution v5. (see here).

Does that tackle your question?

- Gerald