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

Wow, did we had an incredible practice today, we had to check the constitution twice and the secretary had to give an interpretation Thanks [@mention:461938744820271526] and [@mention:573692591169355705]!

Few issues:

> How new Domain with policy on it in Glassfrog in one proposal?

During govenance we added a new Domain and would want for it appear with already a Policy in place but the software does not seem to allow it. How do you do it?

> LL as surogate for absent memebers during Governance

We had a Role missing. LL filled the gap and acted from that role. Has no permission form that Role. Section 4.2.4. states that LL can act within that role to cover the gap but it says only about tactical. Secretary gave interpretation that LL can do this thought facilitator was a bit reluctant as it would not meet the 4th testing question (helping other Role of Circle in general) but Secretary Interpretation Trumps (3.4.1). We went to integration and it all went good. How would you deal?

> How do you change you framing on second Tension?

It does makes sense to shorten the framing after a full round. How do you do? Skip farming in general and just name the rounds and only remind when something is "out of line", do full framing or something in between?

> Droping Governance proposal because of agreed Tactical output

While integrating Objections all parties agreed that it's better to have a meeting regarding the question which became a next-action. They decided to drop the Proposal alltogether and it resolved the Porposers Tenstion. For me as Facilitator it seems fine. The questions are:

  1. Is ot OK from Constitutional viewpoint?
  2. Should the Next-action be catured somewhere or is it something that the Proposer need to remember and to later on?

Thanks in advance!