So this has been bothering me for a while and I'm just now getting to it as some partners are exhibiting confusion.
The problem? The GlassFrog uses the term 'Individual Action' in a way that is not in alignment with the Holacracy Constitution use of 'Individual Action'.
The Constitution has very clear parameters whereby something called 'Individual Action' is allowed to occur. See 4.3 for all of that detail - the key item in my argument being 4.3.1(d) - that a partner "can't delay the action long enough".
The GlassFrog software attaches the term to Action and Project - neither of which meet the threshold or urgency described in 4.3.1(d). If I can wait long enough to record a tactical meeting output or to log into GlassFrog to record it as a project or next-action - I certainly have enough time to ask the individual in the Role(s) affected or to propose governance.
I think the software term is just a 'label' - that H1 in its evolution needed the software to be able to record actions and projects that weren't clearly attached to a specific role. But that doesn't mean it is "Individual Action" - and use of that wording as a label is confusing in a system already confusing enough for many humans.
MY SUGGESTION is to replace the words in the label 'Individual Action' with the words 'Circle Member'.
That's really what is happening with an action that is pursuing the purpose of the Circle but not clearly aligned with any existing Role is - that someone is acting in their duties as Circle Member. My suggestion also fits then for any partner who is assigned as Circle Member but who does not energize a specific Role in the circle. They will be available to accept Action or Project in alignment with the Circle, and instead of the terminology conflation it will be much more accurate to assign the Action or Project as Circle Member.