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

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

Two scenarios (not sure which one you had). #1. The proposal was to delegate a domain to a role + add a policy on the Circle as a whole. In this case, GlassFrog doesn't make it easy to connect them, so you just record both. It's still valid and in general not too confusing. (e.g. domain of "customer order filling process" and circle policy "all customer orders must be filled within 24 hours") 

#2. A domain is delegated to a role + the role would like to add a policy to it's newly granted domain (i.e. in this case, the policy is on the role, not the circle as a whole). The first part is fine, but the second part isn't a  governance decision for the circle. 

• LL as surrogate for absent members during Governance

Since the Lead Link IS the whole circle in some sense, that role will automatically pass the 4th criteria question because the role IS the circle. So, anything that falls through the cracks the Lead Link picks up, as in the case of absent role-fillers in a meeting who aren't there to object. 

• How do you change you framing on second Tension?

My preference (informed by experience), is to always provide some framing to guide the group like, "Ok, let's move on from Clarifying Questions to the Reaction Round...one at a time, no cross-talk...Steven, your reaction?" That's my minimum. I don't ever really say less than that. On the other hand, over-framing is far more common. So, most facilitators could tone it down a little after you've done a few agenda items. It also depends on how long the first one took--if it was an hour long agenda item, then you'll want to re-orient the group as you go through the second one). I find this to be true even with experienced groups because; 1) there is usually at least one person who is still learning the process; 2) I want participants to be free to let their attention wander -- that's fine -- I'll just help them and the group by bringing their attention back as we go.  

• Dropping Governance proposal because of agreed Tactical output

Is it OK from Constitutional viewpoint? Sure. The constitution doesn't say anything about dropping a proposal. As a coach, I really want to understand why they are dropping it, but it's totally OK to do so. 

Should the Next-action be captured somewhere or is it something that the Proposer need to remember and to later on? Never capture something like that as a group output. Because it's not. The second choice is the correct one. Tell the proposer he/she can do what they want with it going forward. I usually say something like, "(to Proposer): Do you need time to record anything on the screen to help you process this later?" Usually, they don't, but sometimes novices do, in which case, I'll call a timeout and let them make some notes, but be alert! Because there is a tendency for a discussion to break out. Just be clear, you'd like to give the proposer ONLY some time...maybe with some Secretary help (and I'll talking seconds), but that it's an operational thing for the person feeling the tension.

Sometimes I need to explain that it's just like if I went online and ordered my lunch during a governance meeting. It's fine. Do what you need to do. But it's not a part of the group's process.