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

Quorum for tactical meetings

Hello Awesome CoP Members!


I have a question regarding section 4.2.2 of the constitution and more specifically quorums for tactical meetings.

Is it possible to adopt such a policy? (sorry for the bad english translation)

Quorum for Tactical Meetings

This policy specifies section 4.2.2 of the constitution which says that “There is no advance notice or quorum required for a Tactical Meeting, unless a Policy says otherwise”. On top of the constitutional requirements, each Core Circle Member has to prioritize attending tactical meetings even over operational work. However, a Core Circle Member can always refuse to come to a meeting if he/she thinks it will cause more harm to come than to achieve next-actions and projects. In this case, the Secretary will be informed prior the meeting.


Any thoughts? [@mention:449693036223847456] Please help

My interpretation of the constitution is that we can but I want to be sure.


Thank you!!

8 Replies
Brian Robertson

It's basically defining a strategy - a heuristic for relative prioritization - which is an allowed lead link function, and because any lead link function can be delegated via governance, I'd interpret that part as allowed, but with only the same force as if a lead link gave that as a relative priority (i.e. it's not a hard rule, there's just a duty to figure out how to integrate and align with it in prioritizing where to direct one's attention). The part I'm less sure about is the demand to inform the Secretary if a meeting will be skipped; that sounds suspiciously like NVGO to me...


Would be curious to know the tension knowing that attending to meetings isn't mandatory? And that if there's a tension you may ask to prioritise coming to meeting. Is that a tension of the Secretary to have people saying him/her before that they don't go to meeting?



[@mention:449693036223847456] : what would be NVGO in it, in your interpretation ? Governing people ? Call to action ? Somethibg else ?

thanks !

Brian Robertson

Whenever I see passive voice ("will be informed") used in a policy, I mentally rewrite it to an active statement to see what it's really saying; so, in this case, "anyone skipping a meeting will inform the Secretary".  Sounds like it's demanding action for one, and two, it's governing the person not a role.


Thanks [@mention:449693036223847456]. Strategy is definitely better

Nick Osborne

[@mention:449693036223847456] would you interpret it valid as a policy if it was articulated in this way: 

'If any circle member chooses to skip a Tactical Meeting, then they must inform the Secretary of their intention to do so'

Brian Robertson

Nick:  No, not even close.

Chris Cowan

[@mention:450960215289659578] The reason the policy you mentioned above seems invalid to me, is because "a Tactical meeting" by definition can happen at any time ("no advanced notice"). So, how could someone "choose" to skip them?