Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Posted in Practicing Holacracy • By Fred Magovern • 03/24/2016

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
03/24/2016

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.

Thanks,

- Dennis

Jean-Michel Gode
03/24/2016

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,
Jean-Michel

Fred Magovern
03/25/2016

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?