Margaux, That "scrum" app is just one possibility, and a minimalistic version. I think the answer to #2 is no if you are talking about the tactical, in whatever format, yet there is an answer that helps you with this.

#1 - I say yes. My interpretation is that you don't even need a policy to modify tactical if you keep the constitutional process...but the last sentence here leads me to believe you could really change it completely via governance:

http://www.holacracy.org/constitution#art423

As for secretary and facilitator, you could constrain the election of facilitator to those filling another role, or say that whoever elected facilitator is also fills another defined role to build in the facilitation piece. You could propose adding accountabilities on Secretary for scheduling the modified meeting.

If the meeting replaces tactical then I don't think you could remove secretary authority to schedule, but if it does not explicitly replace it, I could see another role with an accountability for scheduling it.

I would be mindful to not infringe on the constitutional authorities granted to the elected roles. Curious what else people have done here! Let me know if you have further thoughts.

 

1/ Can we modify it entirely or do we need to keep some steps/focus and intent

2/ Can we specify in the policy that another role than the Secretary is organizing the meeting and/or another role than the Facilitator is facilitating? 

#1 I would interpret the Constitution http://www.holacracy.org/constitution#art423 in a way that it would be ok to change via governance the tactical meeting process even entirely as I get the last sentence "A Circle may adopt a Policy to add to or change this required process". In such case, this "new process" would still be called a tactical meeting process (And i would specify that into the Policy), facilitated by the elected Facilitator and scheduled by Secretary.

#2 Answer would be NO according to my first comment & interpretation.. 

The interesting piece IMO is how to constrain the election of the elected roles. From Section 2.5 my interpretation is that you cannot avoid the election process for any elected role but you may constrain the election by requiring per policy that eligible Core Circle Members should meet certain conditions such as having a specific badge or certification, or being assigned to another defined role in the Org., or ...

I have the case of a client asking me how to constrain the election of Rep Link in a specific circle. The client would love to assign directly the person filling the Rep Link, and this for good reasons like having powerfull & mature people as Rep Link into the Super-Circle. The case is a circle not being yet very mature  in the Holacracy practice, so some key tensions coming from the sub-circle are not processed in many cases. I am envisioning that a policy constraining the election of Rep Link could help, for example by requiring the person being elected to also be qualified from a list of qualified persons to be a Rep Link, such list being held by another role in another circle....

I would be interested to get inputs from others having experienced that one...

The client would love to assign directly the person filling the Rep Link, and this for good reasons like having powerfull & mature people as Rep Link into the Super-Circle. The case is a circle not being yet very mature  in the Holacracy practice, so some key tensions coming from the sub-circle are not processed in many cases.

A bit of a late reply, nevertheless.

I believe there already a construct to cope with that: any core member of the sub-circle can call for re-election, even the Lead Link, who in that case would vehicle the tension from the Super-Circle.