Chris: makes sense that we would still have agreements outside of governance that would guide our behavior with one another, thanks for clarifying. So essentially what you're saying is that we could easily create documentation to "govern" our human obligations to one another and that would be perfectly fine (unless, I guess, something in governance superseded it?). Do I have that right?
If so then I go back to my question about the meaning of "all functions and activities within the circle."
For a few specific examples, we have a number of policies in our GCC impacting the domain of "all functions and activities," including one requiring team members to update their away times in a specific Google Calendar, another restricting how holiday time can be taken, and another requesting that we avoid the word "staff" in favor of "team member."
While I don't disagree with them in principle, these just don't seem like holacratic policies to me. The first is an oddly specific guideline, the second is trying to tell people (not roles) what to do, and the third is a sort of best practices recommendation. If a policy grants or restricts access to a domain, and a domain is something controlled by a circle or role, then these seem non-constitutional - at least where they currently are sitting. How does a circle control holiday or working hours? Roles don't have working hours or go on holiday, people do. And how does a circle control word usage??
I feel like "all functions and activities" is meant to refer to the holacratic structure and governance, not "anything that any person in this circle is doing." Even if these are perfectly legal policies, it feels like they should be pointing to a specific domain. But some clarity on that would be much appreciated! Maybe I'm the one with a fundamental misunderstanding here.
Thanks very much! Great to get such quality feedback and guidance.