Someone new to our organizational model/process has raised a tension about the word "tension" - they think it's negative and would like us to use a substitute.
How does the Constitution address this scenario?
- Would it have to be addressed in the anchor circle, or could it be addressed in any given circle as an autonomous choice of that circle?
- I'm assuming it's conceivable that the proposal could be considered valid. In Section 3.2.1, there's mention of a policy that is not really specific to any role, and presumably such a policy would have to come from a valid proposal (where the proposer can articulate how the proposal will enhance the purpose and/or accountabilities of one of their roles). Is that correct? Am I missing something about how generalized proposals are handled? [Reference: "A Circle may also use a Policy to create a time limit for responding to asynchronous Proposals".]
- Would the only way to validly process this tension be to add an accountability to a role (or create a new role with an accountability) of something like "Deciding on which terms we use for tactical & governance meetings"? Or can a proposal somehow be made on this without creating the accountability/authority to make this decision?
Would really appreciate anyone's input! I'm guessing this kind of a corner case scenario, so it seems like an interesting test of the Constitution's comprehensiveness.