Hey Max, I'm a visual person, so it was a little hard for me to follow your description (so, forgive me if I get any of this wrong).
Objection 1 sounds valid to me (assuming it passes all test criteria). "We cannot let the role and accountabilities fall out of circle C because then no-one would feel responsible for it anymore." Basically, someone is saying, "I think we need that function in this circle and having it in a sub-circle...well, that is great for them, but that doesn't help this circle." If you need to get more specific, then you can ask how that function is needed to energize the current purpose of accountabilities. They should be able to give you examples, but don't put them in a defensive "hot seat" kind of position. Better to err on the side of integrating it.
Objection 2: "The circle Y (capacity building) is not very “real”, i.e. recently founded and the lead link of the super circle (cultural life) is not very active and experienced in this field. So it would be much more realistic to have the circle X (human development)." Ha! Well, the argument, "that it's not very real," isn't enough for me to comment. If the argument is about a lack of capacity of the current role-filler, then that is just a misunderstanding about what governance does.
Creating a new role does not create a new person. It isn't about resources, including human resources (this is a general statement and not 100% accurate, but a useful distinction for this situation). In fact, there is already governance that covers this because the Lead Link of the super-circle is accountable for getting the right role-filler (which would be that sub-circle's "not really there" Lead Link). So, the governance is likely already there to address the issue.
Now, resource concerns can be valid objections. Especially if coming from the Lead Link since that role has an accountability around resources. But even then the argument needs to be clear that the phrasing of the proposed governance actually does necessarily determine resources.
A question like, "even with infinite time and money, would you still have this objection?" can be an effective question to help the objector get more clear. Just remember, if the objector says, "yes" even with infinite resources they would still have the objection, then just move on to other questions or take it into integration).
So, resources can show up in valid objections. Example 1: Creating a new role with a mixture of accountabilities that will make it impossible for the Lead Link to find a good role fit with the current pool of people (e.g. a Finance role that requires lots of financial knowledge
Example 1: Creating a new role with a mixture of accountabilities that will make it impossible for the Lead Link to find a good role fit with the current pool of people (e.g. a Finance role that requires lots of financial knowledge and legal knowledge, though there is no single person who has both...so, LL objects and splits it into two roles. simple).
Example 2: An objection to the proposal "not being realistic" can be valid. So, if there is a new accountability like, "Updating the website to be compatible with all browsers," that role may object by saying, "compatibility with all browsers is not realistic. It's impossible to guarantee compatibility with all browsers -- even with infinite resources, it wouldn't be a good idea to try." Or something like that.
I hope that helps! And let me know if it doesn't because I'm working on a project to distill guidance like this.
Oh, just a thought, I realized that a screenshot would help. Or, maybe something like this...
- SEKEM Holding
- Cultural Life
- Capacity Building
- Cultural Life