All helpful, thanks - and not quite what I'm looking for. I do like the Glossary, I refer folks to it a lot, I just wish it said what it cannot be to remove the socialized conflation of the term policy to mean rules that *can* require action.
If 1.4 is the sole constitution-provided definition of Policy I think it needs greater clarity and expansion re: what a Policy can and cannot do.
I love the coaching tips and the comparisons - and I get it and got it at Practitioner and then Coach training - I personally know what a Policy 'ought' to be.
What I don't have is something written - in an official document like the constitution or addendum - and is something concrete that I can point to for justification to strike invalid governance or propose replacement of policies that exceed these informal definitions that says clearly that which all the coaching and comparisons say.
"Why do we have to replace all these policies (that require action not captured in work agreements, legacy policy or role accountabilities)?"
- um, because that's not what a policy is supposed to be.
"Where does it say anywhere that a policy cannot ____ ?"
- um, well - it doesn't exactly say that anywhere. It's inferred perhaps a little over here in the bit about Authority Over Domains - and if you'd attended either of the trainings you'd have seen a slide that says policies can't require action and heard lots of discussion that said they can't - but it's not explicit in the constitution. Oh - and of course if you were on the CoP you'd see all the smart people agreeing that it's invalid governance."
Examples of what I'm talking about? Sure, look at how screwed up we are - why not? Somebody made a decision at some point to turn our Glassfrog account public so have a look - I have a nearly endless supply of shame available so why not? Many of the policies at our anchor circle concern me but have a look specifically at these four:
https://app.glassfrog.com/policies/642608 'will provide'
https://app.glassfrog.com/policies/7802 'wil contact', '[will] enter their absence'
https://app.glassfrog.com/policies/7608343 'shall each have' which is understood as 'will provide/is required to provide'
https://app.glassfrog.com/policies/6856 'will each communicate daily'
All of those items occurred post-adoption or I'd say they could be bundled as legacy policy. Brian suggested @ coach training to work them into a work/employment agreement, have all concerned sign, then strike the governance. That is the tentative plan - but in addition to anchor facilitator trying to audit governance I hope to also coach - and would like more WHY.
That's why I'm looking for more from the constitution on Policy.
and yes - maybe I'm intimidated by shadow power structure and trying to socialize a WHY prior to just being a Ferrari and acting on tension
and, I'm human.