Hi Rémi. In addition to Margaux's link, you can also look at this Policy page on the Holacracy Wiki.
A few thoughts on the policies you present:
- One that get the dishes dirty, washes it.
Valid intent but weird phrasing. Something like "No one may use the dishes unless they wash them after use" would be clearly valid.
The context of this policy would be useful to know. It could be off because it's governing how people are interacting in the office vs the organization's roles. To make it consistent, you'd want some employee agreement (maybe part of the contract, or something agreed on personally before hire) that they will personally follow the rules defined by the Office role or circle for example. And it'd be a good idea to have a role in this circle representing the employees — like an "Employee Cross Link" or something. An example here from HolacracyOne. This is a bit advanced, so don't worry too much about it if you're just starting with Holacracy and there's no tension around it.
- Every circle must define their OKR (Objectives and Key Results) and do everything in its power to attain it
Clearly invalid as it's mandating action vs. adding a constraint to an action/activity that either 1) is already expected explicitly (via the constitution, governance, or some partnership agreement), or 2) role fillers choose to take. It would work better as an accountability on each sub-circle, since it's adding an expectation. Something like "Defining Objective and Key Results and working toward them" — though you could argue that it's already what defining projects is about.
Some parts of OKR are great (defining objectives) and others conflict with Holacracy (deadlines).
- Every governance results must be in French (except when impossible)
Seems fine - it's constraining the activity of recording governance. Could also be phrased "Governance records may only be captured in French, except when impossible". (note: the "except when impossible" part is a bit unclear or vague for me, but if it makes sense to your org it's fine, and definitely not invalid)
- The organisation follow the 4.1 version of the Holacracy constitution
Likely not valid: it's outside the scope of authority of the governance process, because the governance process itself is part of the constitution, which has been ratified by some person (e.g. CEO) or process (e.g. board vote). In any case, only the person/process with the authority to ratify the constitution in the first place can decide to change the version being used. See article 5.5 Constitution Amendments and Repeal.
If, however, the Ratifier(s) have decided to delegate the authority to unratify/change constitution version to the governance process, then yeah I can see it being valid.