[@mention:456308404149183518] There are good reasons for people to discuss a possible governance change before proposing it, so I'm not saying it's not a good idea in your particular case. There are also risks involved, especially if the people are unexperienced Holacracy practitioners.
For example, if the situation at hand is particularly complex and impacts a lot of stakeholders, then it might make sense for the person collecting input from them before proposing a change in governance. This will allow him to start with a better proposal to address his tension.
On the other hand, if the discussion is focused on trying to "convince" others or getting buy-in from the group to ensure that they don't object during the governance meeting, for example, then it's probably undermining your Holacracy practice.
There is a fine line between these two stances that experienced practitioners may be able to navigate, but if they are novices, my general advice would be to just bring it to the governance meeting — especially if you can have a good Holacracy coach who will help during the meeting.
Regarding the happiness of the person filling the role, I don't know the specifics but sometimes it's just necessary to face the reality that what is best for the organization might not be our favorite course of action... I would probably offer some support to that person, acknowledging his feelings (it's not fun to feel like we "wasted" time on something), helping him understand that this change of direction is not a disapproval of his contribution as a worker, and that his talents really valuable working on something else.