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

Combining tensions with clarifications in a governance proposal

Is it constitutionally valid for a tension-driven proposal to also include aspects that are only clarifying? As Facilitator I am testing the tension-driven parts, and accepting the clarifying portions as valid without testing. In contrast, if there are two tensions being separately addressed by different aspects of a single proposal, I insist that they are split into different proposals.

If this is not constitutionally valid, then I plan to propose a GCC policy to make this ok. Unless of course someone here presents a compelling reason not to!

3 Replies
Dennis Ross

Hi Fred,

Can you provide an example of a Governance proposal that includes the aspects you are describing?  I'm not sure I understand your question.


- Dennis

Jean-Michel Gode

Hi Fred,

I don't understand your issue very clearly.

From my perspective, important point is to get a starting proposal, even a few words, to process the tension. So you can apply the IDM process. Through clarifying questions and reactions round, proposer will be able to get a lot of informations about his/her original issue. After that, he/her might clarify tension and amend proposal, or drop the proposal waiting for more maturation.

Hope that helps,

Fred Magovern

When initially testing the proposal as Facilitator, the proposer said it was only clarifying existing activity or governance. Upon further investigation, I uncovered that part of the proposal was actually a tension driven change.

Example of a clarifying change within this proposal: Creating player spreadsheets (deadline,(except release,for checkingClient copies)Services emails)

Example of a tension-driven change - adding accountability: Deciding how to handle response corner cases when there isn't a standard protocol

Am I required to have the proposer separate these as different tensions/proposals? Or can I test the validity of the tension-driven portion and allow the clarifying elements to remain as part of the same proposal?