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

Great practice today with [@mention:573692591169355705], [@mention:461938744820271526], [@mention:577211662873788485] and Dathne Turner. Today we did a whole session for Helen as she is having her certification test today! This is a curtesy and tradition in the Online Practice Group to do at least one such session for a member before he goes to certification so that he can get used to a longer format We are keeping our fingers crossed! Several questions.

> Idea for 3R's in Amend & Clarify

We had a situation when the Proposer was getting lengthy in the Amend & Clarify round. He was reminded to keep it brief and to stick to the proposal, which was good and greased the wheels for the process but made the Proposer feel unprotected. For once it is not said anywhere it needs to be brief but at the same time it's also a place where, especially new, practitioners might look for consensus or be anxious after the reaction round so they might need extra comfort. So my question is what would be a good 3R (rule, reason, redirect) for such an instance to keep the process going and still protect the proposer? Maybe something like:

  • Rule: this round is focused on the Proposal
  • Reason: you do not need to address issues raised in the Reaction Round, we are focusing on resolving your Tension
  • Redirect: if someone will have a Tension wit your proposal they can voice it in the Objection round so we can move along with the process...


> Testing the Validity of a Proposal

According to (3.2.2) Criteria for Valid Proposals and (3.2.3) Testing Proposals a Proposal can be Valid or not and it can be tested.

  • (3.2.3) Proposer must be able to:
    • describe the Tension
    • give example of actual past of present situation which the Proposal would reduce the Tension
    • must be presented with logical manner thus reasonable


When such testing can be made of feedbacked ? intuitively I would say that a coaching on this can be done during Present Proposal round, reaction round but maybe it should go to Objection round? Or maybe it's only for special occasion time-out type of coaching when we are facing a breakdown of a process?

> what do if someone "sneaks" another Tension during Integration round

We had a situation that the Proposer altered the original Proposal is such a way that he added an additional Tension during Integration. As the result the Proposal was better and everybody was satisfied with it. I would say that in such a case, the Integration round is a perfect place for new ideas and Tension to pop-up and it's good to embrace them to some extent if they do not deviate from the original Tension but where is the fine line? Would welcome any thoughts on that.

Best to all!