Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Konrad Olesiewicz posted:

We had an abundance of practitioners today We did a nice training with [@mention:563839477050140014], [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:527948166491091727], Dathane Turner  and Toon Franken. We experienced a lot of styles and different energies of facilitation. Thanks guys!

From more interesting bits.

> inability to object (and thus later integrate) to ones proposal

We had a situation where one person presented a proposal to address a Tension coming out of his roles. The proposal was to add an accountability to a Role that would address the issue. Then during the objection round the Proposer became the Objector and said that there is a person better suited for this accountability and that it would be good to change that. But the objection was dropped after testing as invalid because of wanting to help other Role. So it went through and the Proposer/Objector now would need to add a new Tension to modify his newly accepted Proposal. 

Have you had a situation like that? What do you think about it? Could the freshly accepted Proposal be modified during the same Governance meeting or it would have to wait for a new one?

Hi, I know I am late to the party here...sounds like some pretty specific situations which is a great opportunity for coaching and learning! Nice work everyone.

I have seen proposers come to realize they have a better way to proceed during integration. The tricky part here is that as soon as the objector realizes the objection is invalid, then it is the facilitator's job to end integration and move back to the objection round. If someone, even proposer objects facilitator has two choices: capture and proceed with the process, or test it and follow process accordingly. 

The best pathway is for the proposer is probably to add an agenda item and propose moving the accountability to the other role if they are clear it is a better way to go, and as facilitator I would likely just go to that agenda item next during the same governance meeting. It helps people since you are on the same tension and it is easier on the brain. So no, it does not need to wait for a new meeting.

From a practice perspective, it can be difficult to accept governance that one is uncertain about or knows will not be ideal. In fact in most cases it is not ideal and it takes iterating or trying it and then changing it to truly know. So it could be useful to talk about this (outside of the governance meeting); sometimes you can't know if an approach is better until you try it. 

Hope that helps.