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

[@mention:550889693769022824] -- Given this, "This is a policy about compensation and we are opening the policy to be edited by folks that would be compensated in that policy where the parameters of what or how we can compensate people is unclear (hence the disagreement)," the problem is that the objections don't meet criteria #3, i.e. it's a tension felt in one of the roles you fill. Seems like it's a tension felt by the person filling the role, rather than the role itself. I wrote about this difference in my article, "This Time It's Personal." Basically, even though one's performance in their role may be impacted by a compensation concern, it's still a tension felt by the person (and not the role), because the formal expectations of the role "Trainer" haven't changed.  

So, those objections aren't valid as a part of the governance integration process, however of course, they may be valid tensions to process. My recommendation is instead of proposing the policy, create a role like "Compensation Captain," and give it a domain like "Compensation for Trainers" and an accountability like "Designing and enacting a fair compensation process for Trainers." That way there is one clear decision-maker, who can then assume will energize that role to the best of their judgment (but likely to include data gathering from the impacted Trainers).

And I would highly, highly discourage this, "I think we will revisit this in an extraordinary governance meeting as you suggest and will encourage the next proposer to come with a solid proposal ahead of time for people to respond to." As reasonable as that seems, it actually makes things worse and creates what I call the "objection death spiral." Objections shouldn't be avoided. They aren't the problem. And a "bad" proposal that prompts objections isn't the problem either. The problem, in this case, is that you're trying to integrate lots of invalid objections. Remove them and use the process as normal.