Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Tom Mulder posted:

Hello,

The focus

of the IMD process is to handle Tensions from the Members of the Circle to help the Circle better express it's Governance.

So yes it is focused on processing Tensions. But it is not aimed on having a Proposal passed. It is focused on having valid Proposals that do not cause harm or set the Organization back. That is where the collective comes in. By allowing the other members to give their reaction on the Proposal the roll filler will harvest additional information that might or might not make him/her decide to change the Proposal. The Objection Round is the part where the collective together checks if the Proposal causes no harm. So this is the space where others can help the Proposer to point out that his/her Proposal as is, is causing harm to the Organization. Finally Integration Round is where the collective comes together to take away the Objections but still with the focus that the Original Tension of the Proposer is still addressed. That is also why the Proposer in Integration needs to confirm that this is the case. Why? Because the process is focused on handling the Tensions from the members one at a time.

So my answer is NO. But not for the reason of passing or humility but for the reason that the process takes care of the people and provides room for the collective to participate.

hello tom
thank you so much for your answer

it is clear on the purpose of the governance process: "to handle Tensions from the Members of the Circle to help the Circle better express it's Governance"

what remains confused is the purpose of the reaction round.

Reading tour answer, I can tell myself that it could be removed : the turn of objection is enough to handle the risks
so I wonder what would be lacking without the reaction turn ?