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

Processing Asynchronous Governance proposals

Hi all, I'm looking for some guidance and insights on the processing of Asynchronous Governance proposals. In our organisation it happens quite a lot that the full time is used and a proposal is automatically accepted due to the time setting in Glassfrog passing without all circle members responding to a proposal. For me that feels both like a blessing as a curse...

A blessing because at least we are moving forward as a circle within this time setting, but also as a curse because if people are not responding I am unsure if I have made the best use of all information available in the organisation. Just waiting for the time to pass takes away the feeling of movement with me, especially if no real questions or reactions are coming in.

I also not just want to propose to shorten the time period to make sure my circle members have ample time to look at a proposal and think about questions that they feel pop-up and reactions that they feel that need to be given.

Article 4.1 has some duties in prioritizing but does processing asynchronous governance proposals also fall in these duties. If so I can update the knowledge of my circle members to make sure they understand where the processing of a proposal belongs in their list of priorities..

Any guidance available here on this matter?

2 Replies
Max Hesse

Hi Robert@Oliver,

I understand where you are coming from, although I would look at it from a different angle:
The integrative decision-making process (IDM) which is the process used in a Governance meeting, is set out to guide the proposer from tension to an accepted proposal. It is 100% the proposer's responsibility to solve his tension as it is 100% everyone else's responsibility to solve their respective tensions.

Holacracy is enabling role-fillers to come up with incremental changes that are "good enough to try" and therefore adapting Governance on a continuous basis.

So although IDM gives the proposer the opportunity to integrate feedback to make the proposal "better" he has no obligation to do so whatsoever.

So if people are not responding to asynchronous Governance proposals, this only shows me that they have different priorities but are not harming the organisation in any sense. The proposer's proposal should already be good enough otherwise he probably would not have circulated it. If a week later other's feel a tension to change Governance to the better, there is no one stopping them from processing a proposal via the Governance process.




Thanks Max, good feedback.