> is "more" in an accountability an NVGO?
I'd love to find a way to NVGO object, but I think it's probably just "bad." If I were facilitating I'd probably try to set-up a relevant objector by saying something like, "This is a step forward -- though if I were in role X, I would probably object to the word 'more,' because I'll lose clarity on how much energy I should put toward that accountability..." or something like that.
More broadly, I think there is an important distinction to be made between what a facilitator, as facilitator, might object to (e.g. NVGO), versus what other roles probably should object to, but may not because they're just learning how it all works and may not see the issues in the moment. In the second case, I generally just try to highlight the issue for people, and give them a good argument for an objection without pushing it on them.
I'm also not completely convinced there isn't some genuine NVGO objection that could be made on it. It's just a sense I have, but I can't think of what it would be.
> why we ask the Proposer about Objection on his own Proposal?
Yep, you got it. It's also a manifestation of the "one tension at a time" principle, meaning, as proposer, you don't need to think through very much at all...you don't need to worry about how it might impact others, you don't even need to worry about how/if it might impact other roles you yourself have...because you can always object. That's the beauty of the process.
Another function of this question is if the proposer realizes that the proposal wouldn't actually resolve the tension (regardless of other roles they hold). In that case, a proposer might actually object to the proposal as NVGO, because by definition, a proposal needs to resolve a tension and this proposal doesn't. I don't recall if I've ever actually seen it used, but just knowing it's there has been helpful for me.
> can we have 2 same accountabilities on different Roles?
I haven't come across instances where this makes sense, but [@mention:476716727616148334] makes a good argument that it may be fine. In general though, I'd be very skeptical of it. Afterall, decreasing clarity is pretty much the definition of "harm." So, it kinda goes back to whether you're thinking of it as a facilitator only (i.e. "What NVGO objection might I be able to raise to this?") versus whether you have other roles in the circle that could object, or are trying to equip other roles with a good objection.
If I was facilitating, I would probably go early in the reaction round and say something like, "Having the same accountability in two places generally means we're losing clarity somehow, so if I was in any roles that leaned on that expectation, I'd think really hard about whether having it in two places would impact my role. Maybe not...."
And of course, I'd always end with something like, "And proposer, this is actually completely irrelevant at all for you, because the process doesn't want you to worry about any of this. You just stick with the proposal as is if it solves your tension." This seems particularly important because you said, "We had a case where during A&C the Propose, based on feedback from RR, made this modification," which is a red flag to me.
> helping with crafting the Proposal by Facilitator
Great question. For me, it all depends on whether; 1) the proposer asked the facilitator a question about domains, or 2) the facilitator provided that information unsolicited. The first one is fine, the second one isn't.
If you're dealing with a novice group, then I'd let them propose anything they want, say very little in RR, then raise an objection and only THEN would I provide the direct coaching. This is by far the best approach because it's "facilitating the process, and letting the process facilitate the people." Which isn't to say direct coaching earlier on can't be helpful...it's just that you're teaching them the right things with the wrong method. And since experience is the best teacher, you'll actually be taking a step backward because people will remember the experience more than the content you said.
On the other hand, if they asked a question because they're not sure what Holacracy construct would actually work, then that is basically like asking for discussion (i.e. they don't know what solves their tension), though as a facilitator, I would likely just answer it and see if that was enough for them to propose something.
Other than that though, watch out for the seductive allure of the direct path. As coach Pat Riley has said, "Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." It's far more important that everyone plays by the same rules than someone get a slightly faster answer in any given case.
In general, I think facilitators get way too anxious about helping people understand all of the rules and best practices in a single meeting. It's not necessary to capitalize on every possible learning opportunity because it's not possible to absorb that much. How long has it taken most of us to learn these nuances? Usually years. So, best case scenario, exceptionally good explanations could speed that up very slightly, but it's still going to take a long time (and if the right stuff is taught the wrong way, then ultimately it's not even helping). With that in mind...so what if the governance output is bad? It's not carved in stone. There is plenty of time for things to work themselves out. On the other hand, addressing all cases of bad governance during the meeting conveys the opposite message. Instead, use the time outside of the meeting to talk about those things.
*stepping off soapbox now. : )