Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site
Posted in GlassFrogBy Tyler Danke • 12/31/2016

Remove Rep Link

We are trying outa constitutional amendment for a People and Partnership circle (we call it Team Happiness). I want to remove the assignment of Rep Link. How do we remove the assignment (election) of the rep link? It isn't a role that is assigned.

12 Replies
Jean-Michel Gode

Hi Tyler,
As RL is a core role; to stay aligned with the Holacracy Constitution you can’t remove the role.
But any Core Member of the People and Partnership Circle may ask for a new election at any time...
Hope that helps,

Bernard Marie Chiquet

[@mention:456167666726491228] I understand you've done an constitutional amendment for P&P circle, in which this circle has no LL nor Rep-Link. To answer your question, you cannot remove the Rep Link assignment (in case it's already done) & even if you hold a new election, GlassFrog doesn't allow for "unfilled". What you may do (it's what we've done with iGi) is to create a new P&P Circle and repatriate all policies & roles from the former P&P circle - and of course leave "unfilled" both Lead Link and Rep Link.

Koen Veltman

[@mention:449833773730792463] - a potential feature request? sounds like a simple solve!

It just sounds right to be able to have a governance proposal: "I propose not to elect a Rep Link"

Great if Glassfrog can offer this as the solution BMC offers sounds cumbersome.

Jeff Kreh

[@mention:456167666726491228], what tension does removing subcircle representation solve? Also, how do you envision this "Team Happiness Circle" having a voice in and delivering value into the organization under what appears at first glance to be a rather isolated construct?

Tyler Danke

Here is our constitution amendment. https://app.glassfrog.com/policies/8670653  There are at least 3 cross links that have the duties and powers of a Rep Link and not just one Rep Link. "Each of these representatives has the duties and powers of a Rep Link with regard to the stakeholders they represent."

Bernard Marie Chiquet

[@mention:456167666726491228] Interesting! You've similar Constitutional Amendment: Partnership Structure as HolacracyOne's. We've had the same and trying to move forward to get even more *human*



I think a GlassFrog workaround is to "elect" someone to that role who you can then delete from your organization.  This should leave the role unfilled.  Or, you could create a member of the organization called "Intentionally Unfilled" and elect that account member to the role of rep link.  Both of these would require admin privileges.


Alexia Bowers

[@mention:456167666726491228]: we've got a feature request to allow un-assigning elected roles in GlassFrog, which might get you partially where you are looking for. I'll add a +1 for you. And as we experiment with this in our own People & Partnership circle, I think we'll find out what kinds of things GlassFrog will need to do to support Holacracy 5, so thank you for posting what you're doing with it!

Fred Magovern

What tension did this constitutional amendment solve? In your organization, who are the ratifiers?

Tyler Danke

[@mention:476716727643924128] Thanks for the suggested temporary work around. I had sensed that would be the way to process the tension with the current software functionality. 

Regarding [@mention:476575990100578797] and other's questions, I don't have the energy or interest at the moment to adequately answer your question but I hope to at some point.  I basically did type up the answer to Freds questions and put it in the tension box in glassfrog when I proposed a board circle "policy". 

Tyler Danke

You can see some rich conversation on this topic on github here. https://github.com/holacracyon...nstitution/issues/90 

Tyler Danke

[@mention:476575990100578797] Here is my write up of the tensions this amendment solved. In my organization I, as the "manager" of the LLC am the ratifier of the Constitution.

I am sorry for the delay in my response. I wish I could pull up in glassfrog how I had my tension worded there, it could have answered a lot of this questions without need for typing it again for your reading


The tension behind the adoption of this constitutional amendment:

Firstly constitutional amendments do not have to be tension driven in the same way that governance has to be. 

5.5 Constitution Amendments and Repeal The Ratifiers or their successors may amend this Constitution or repeal it entirely, using whatever authority and process they relied upon to adopt it. Amendments must be in writing and published where all Partners of the Organization can access them.

When I show up in the Team Happiness circle I struggled with what role I was representing. I was representing my Board Founder Context role when I was showing up in Team Happiness. I sensed that when we were having Team Happiness circle meetings it was many times uncomfortable and less than ideal to not have at least a Cross Link from Partners representing the voice of the partners. When dealing with employment relationships it is nice to have the voice of the partners, voice of the role assigners, and the voice of the Founder Context all represented. Prior to this amendment We experienced that partners were feeling controlled without representation.

When we are in the Team Happiness circle I had a tension with roles being assigned. Benefits role was assigned to a person who had different ideas on how to energize the role than how the majority of the Team Happiness circle core members sensed would be best. Therefore the Team Happiness circle roles being elected is an improvement and the circle not having a Lead Link is great. The Facilitator is allowed to decide to use a different election process at their discretion. This is appreciated because some roles are a quick everyone agrees that one person should fill and we don't have to take the ten minutes that integrated election takes. 

Relationship Contracts: I didn't exactly have any tension that caused this section. 

Working agreements: We used to have a Team Member role that was being used as the things that we expect every partner to do inside of each of their roles. The Team Member accountabilities became our working agreements. We had a situation this year where we had a partner where they did not want to abide by our Security policies. The working agreement section greatly clarifies how this would go down. 

There is a bit of extra sophistication than the tensions that I sensed but ultimately I think that it was better as a whole than to take pieces away from it at least to try it.

Glassfrog is not up to not removing the rep link assignment. The work around doesn't seem ideal to me at the moment. I appreciate being able to keep the history especially in this circle so I am okay with keeping the expired rep link assignment for the moment.  I actually believe at this moment that saying that the circle does not have a Rep Link is excessively complex, but not enough for me to want to amend the constitution again.