Hello,

The focus of the IMD process is to handle Tensions from the Members of the Circle to help the Circle better express it's Governance.

So yes it is focused on processing Tensions. But it is not aimed on having a Proposal passed. It is focused on having valid Proposals that do not cause harm or set the Organization back. That is where the collective comes in. By allowing the other members to give their reaction on the Proposal the roll filler will harvest additional information that might or might not make him/her decide to change the Proposal. The Objection Round is the part where the collective together checks if the Proposal causes no harm. So this is the space where others can help the Proposer to point out that his/her Proposal as is, is causing harm to the Organization. Finally Integration Round is where the collective comes together to take away the Objections but still with the focus that the Original Tension of the Proposer is still addressed. That is also why the Proposer in Integration needs to confirm that this is the case. Why? Because the process is focused on handling the Tensions from the members one at a time.

So my answer is NO. But not for the reason of passing or humility but for the reason that the process takes care of the people and provides room for the collective to participate.

Hi Jean-Luc,

That's a very interesting point you bring. I would say yes and no. It's the Proposer's aim to resolve his Tension so (A) and he does not need to be very mindful of his ecology as the system assumes that all other members will be frank and will give objections when they sense the Proposal harm some part of the organisation. In this regards it is in a way a collective intelligence process (B) but quite heavily moderated. Also in the integration round there is space for more emergence and collaboration on finding a good solution.

I'm just curious from where does your question come from? It it curiosity or is it a result of something else?

Cheers!

Tom Mulder posted:

Hello,

The focus

of the IMD process is to handle Tensions from the Members of the Circle to help the Circle better express it's Governance.

So yes it is focused on processing Tensions. But it is not aimed on having a Proposal passed. It is focused on having valid Proposals that do not cause harm or set the Organization back. That is where the collective comes in. By allowing the other members to give their reaction on the Proposal the roll filler will harvest additional information that might or might not make him/her decide to change the Proposal. The Objection Round is the part where the collective together checks if the Proposal causes no harm. So this is the space where others can help the Proposer to point out that his/her Proposal as is, is causing harm to the Organization. Finally Integration Round is where the collective comes together to take away the Objections but still with the focus that the Original Tension of the Proposer is still addressed. That is also why the Proposer in Integration needs to confirm that this is the case. Why? Because the process is focused on handling the Tensions from the members one at a time.

So my answer is NO. But not for the reason of passing or humility but for the reason that the process takes care of the people and provides room for the collective to participate.

hello tom
thank you so much for your answer

it is clear on the purpose of the governance process: "to handle Tensions from the Members of the Circle to help the Circle better express it's Governance"

what remains confused is the purpose of the reaction round.

Reading tour answer, I can tell myself that it could be removed : the turn of objection is enough to handle the risks
so I wonder what would be lacking without the reaction turn ? 

Konrad Olesiewicz posted:

Hi Jean-Luc,

That's a very interesting point you bring. I would say yes and no. It's the Proposer's aim to resolve his Tension so (A) and he does not need to be very mindful of his ecology as the system assumes that all other members will be frank and will give objections when they sense the Proposal harm some part of the organisation. In this regards it is in a way a collective intelligence process (B) but quite heavily moderated. Also in the integration round there is space for more emergence and collaboration on finding a good solution.

I'm just curious from where does your question come from? It it curiosity or is it a result of something else?

Cheers!

Hello Konrad and thank you for tour answer 

my question comes from a disagreement with colleagues: I explained to clients that the reaction is a time of collective intelligence embedded in the process of governance that allows them to start with a draft of proposal.

My colleagues told me that from their point of view, this is not the case (no Ci) ... which deeply amazed me and gave me the need to reflect. (in CI)

from where my post here

 As with Tom, Reading your answer, I can tell myself that reaction turn could be removed : the turn of objection is enough to handle the risks
so I wonder what would be lacking without the reaction turn ? 

[@mention:532592670943008396] To your question "What would be lacking without Reaction Round?", I would say many things. One is a safe space for people to digest the proposal - some of us need to speak loudly to reflect on something. Another one is a safe space again for people who may feel some pressure, kind like some attachment to the proposal, to express the inner pressure they feel. Another purpose which is my favorite, is to help the Proposer by modeling/offering different pathways that may address the Proposer's Tension. And I'm sure they are more into it. 

Bernard Marie Chiquet posted:

[@mention:532592670943008396] To your question "What would be lacking without Reaction Round?", I would say many things. One is a safe space for people to digest the proposal - some of us need to speak loudly to reflect on something. Another one is a safe space again for people who may feel some pressure, kind like some attachment to the proposal, to express the inner pressure they feel. Another purpose which is my favorite, is to help the Proposer by modeling/offering different pathways that may address the Proposer's Tension. And I'm sure they are more into it. 

Hello Jean-Marie and thank you for your contribution

I understand better the first two added values that you mention (safe space to digest the proposal and to express the inner pressure some people may feel.)

The added value that you prefer (to help the Propose by modeling / offering different pathways) is the one that I also prioritized.

In reading these answers, I come to the conclusion that according to the vision of each, the prioritization varies (the purpose of the reaction turn is for some to digest the proposal rather than discovering different pathways and for others of which I to discover different pathways rather than to digest the proposal).
Obviously, both purposes are active in practice.

[@mention:532592670943008396]. Fully echo Bernard Marie. Taking out Reaction Round will mean that we do not give the collective the opportunity to express their feelings around the Proposal or provide insights that would help the Proposer to enhance the Proposal.