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

Mistake on Governance Card?

I don't know if it's my interpretation, but seems like there is a mistake that might confuses people while reading the new governance card. 

http://www.holacracy.org/wp-co...ance-Card_2016-1.pdf

On testing objection workflow, on : "Is it not safe enough to try, because significant harm could happen before we can adapt?""  If you say yes, the flow makes the proposal invalid. Shouldn't be otherwise?

So, the graphics are just misplaced, right?

Cheers,

 

5 Replies
Flavio Souza Ratzke
08/19/2016

 

My first thought was that you were wrong, but looking at the card, I think you are correct.

"Is it enough safe to try?" if you say No (it´s not safe to try), then it would be a valid objection, but the card says otherwise.

I agree with you. Let´s wait for other comments.

Jean-Michel Gode
08/19/2016

Hi Bastos,

Main idea of the testing questions is to check if an objection is valid according to the Holacracy constitution, not to discard the proposal.

If the objection is valid, the next step of the IDM process is integration: amending the proposal until it both addresses the proposer's tension and erases the objector’s objection.

About your topic, note that the complete question, if you know previously that the objection is anticipated, is: « Is there a reason we can’t adapt once we get more data OR Is it safe enough to try, knowing we can revisit that any time »

If the objector answers "Yes, it not safe enough to try, because we can't adapt once we get more data" and can give a grounded example of how the proposal could harm the circle, the objection is valid (at least regarding the known data criteria). That means that both objector and proposer will have to amend the initial proposal until it becomes "safe enough to try", even without known data.

Hope that helps,
Jean-Michel

Bastos
08/19/2016
Jean-Michel Gode posted:

Hi Bastos,

Main idea of the testing questions is to check if an objection is valid according to the Holacracy constitution, not to discard the proposal.

If the objection is valid, the next step of the IDM process is integration: amending the proposal until it both addresses the proposer's tension and erases the objector’s objection.

About your topic, note that the complete question, if the objection is anticipated, is: « Is there a reason we can’t adapt once we get more data OR Is it safe enough to try, knowing we can revisit that any time »

If the objector answers "Yes, it not safe enough to try, even if we can revisit it at any time" and can give a grounded example of how the proposal could harm the circle, the objection is valid (at least regarding the known data criteria). That means that both objector and proposer will have to amend the initial proposal until it becomes "safe enough to try", even without known data.

Hope that helps,
Jean-Michel

 Thanks but I think I understand the concept. My intention is to make the card easier to understand. The way it is right now, gives the idea that if there is a reason we can’t adapt once we get more data, then the objection is not valid. Please check the card if I'm misunderstanding.

 

Cheers, 

Jean-Michel Gode
08/19/2016

Hi,

The card you linked is a new one (Black and Yellow). From my perspective, there is a misplacement as you noticed.

FYI, there is an hold one (Blue and Green) that I'd in mind which was OK.

Best,

Chris Cowan
08/19/2016

Yep! That is a mistake. Thanks so much for pointing that out!!