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

Project updates in tactical

The constitution (4.1) states:

1) Participants may only share progress made since the last report given, and not the general status of a project or accountability

 2) Each participant may decide which projects or accountabilities are worth reporting on. 

I am interested in finding out how different facilitators go through the project overview in glass frog.

Do you only do updates on 'current' and skip 'waiting for' and 'done'?

Do you also include waiting for and done, and how?

Do you have policies around that?

Do you report on accountabilities?

Do you do it role-wise or person wise?

Thanks in advance

Marco

8 Replies
Tyler Danke
11/19/2016

We don't actually use the statuses of project updates. We do updates on any of the projects that have made progress since the last meeting. We have no policies around project reports. Many of our "projects" in glassfrog and in our meetings are really accountabilities; we do it this way because glassfrog doesn't have a explicit functionality for reporting on accountabilities and most of our work is really accountability based and not on temporary projects. We go through the "projects" on a per person basis. 

Dennis Ross
11/19/2016

Hi Marco,

As a general rule, I will ask each role-filler to provide an update on their projects and remind them that the update should be restricted to any changes or updates since our last Tactical meeting. 

Early in our practice, I would read each project and ask the role-filler if there were any updates.  This practice helped draw attention to each of the individual projects and helped avoid the "no updates on any of my projects" response, which doesn't really allow enough time for the group sense and respond to tensions around the role and or project list.

I do not skip waiting for or completed projects (I do ask if the completed project can be archived).

- Dennis 

Andrea Faré
11/20/2016

 Ciao Marco,

I ask for updates by person and let each person speak, I usually don't read projects one by one but if I did I wouldn't make distinctions  by status ( I.e: a project moved to "done" during the week may still make it  worth reporting on the delta that brought it there) every once in a while I remind participants that they have the right to ask for updates on projects they are interested in even those that they know exist but are not tracked (yet). Before moving to the next person I usually ask the current speaker if he wants to make any project status changes.

Ruben @ Springest
11/20/2016
  • No policies
  • Per person, but behind the person's name her roles are listed for clarity
  • Only on Active and Waiting For (and if new / useful, Future projects as well)
  • What do you mean with "report on accountabilities"?
Andrea Faré
11/21/2016
Ruben @ Springest posted:
  • What do you mean with "report on accountabilities"?

He might be referring to article 4.3.3  although I too have never heard anyone report on accountabilities or ask others info about how they were being expressed (but that may be just a lack of statistical evidence on my part)

"each Circle Member so attending shall highlight progress made since the last Tactical Meeting towards achieving any Project or expressing any Accountability duly-held by such Circle Member on behalf of a Role of such Circle, to the extent that (a) such Circle Member believes relevant and useful to report to such meeting’s participants, or (b) another Circle Member explicitly requested updates for within a prior Tactical Meeting"

Marco
11/21/2016

Thank you all for the replies. I am indeed referring to article 4.3.3. which states this.

Quoting [@mention:449411339497350002] on this:

" Reporting on accountabilities progress was introduced in the constitution 4.1, but GlassFrog has not incorporated this change directly yet. However, I would suggest to simply capture the "accountability progress" as a project in GlassFrog for accountabilities you want regular updates on. Yes GlassFrog will treat it as a project, but as long as you're clear it's not, it works fine. Maybe capture the "project" name by "Accountability: ____________" so everyone is clear on what it is. " (...-on-accountabilities)

Interesting to see the different practices, and also surprised nobody in this thread has developed governance (a policy) around it, since the constitution here does allow for more specificity. But probably no tensions around this.

Andrea Faré
11/21/2016
Marco posted:

Thank you all for the replies. I am indeed referring to article 4.3.3. which states this.

Quoting [@mention:449411339497350002] on this:

 "I would suggest to simply capture the "accountability progress" as a project...."

Thanks I had missed this  contribution.

Bernard Marie Chiquet
11/21/2016
Marco posted:

Thank you all for the replies. I am indeed referring to article 4.3.3. which states this.

 

Interesting to see the different practices, and also surprised nobody in this thread has developed governance (a policy) around it, since the constitution here does allow for more specificity. But probably no tensions around this.

Yep, I know that Constitution refers to report on accountability progress. In iGi's practice, we've not yet sense any tension so we don't do it, unless somebody ask for that (which has never happened up to now).  As a consequence of not having sense any tension here, we don't have any Policy.