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

Testing Proposal

I would like ask some help to have a clear understanding of validating proposals. I copied here the section 3.2.3 Testing Proposal of the Constitution 4.1. Also placed some inline question. 

 

I would appreciate any shared experience! 

 

"The Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal by asking questions of the Proposer."

In wich steps may the Facilitator do it?  I suppose the Objection round and the integration round... Any CCM may request the F to ask it?

 

For a Proposal to survive the test, theProposer must be able to describe the Tension, and give an example of an actual past or present situation in which the Proposal would have reduced that Tension and helped the Circle in one of the ways allowed by the prior section.

Do I understand it right that at this explanation data is not a requirement, but helpful?

 

The Facilitator must discard the Proposal if the Facilitator deems the Proposer has failed to meet this threshold. However, when assessing the validity of a Proposal, the Facilitator may only judge whether the Proposer presented the required example and explanations, and whether they were presented with logical reasoning and are thus reasonable.

Is my undertanding right that this is the validation of the Proposal, but it does not validate the Tension? That the Tension can not be validated?

What is the case when the reasoning is illogical? How should I prove with a data supported objection that logic is necessary and the lack of logic is harmful? Is it enough to set a previous example of illogical action that lacked awareness and therefore caused harm?

I believe that logic is not allways the silver bullet. There are situations when gut level intuition shows direction. Does anyone have experience like this?

 

The Facilitator may not make a judgment on the basis of their accuracy, nor on whether the Proposal would adequately address the Tension.

I suppose if I hold the F role and also hold a defined role, in the latter I may oppose by judging tha accuracy of the proposal, may I?

Does anyone have good examples of judging the accuracy of the proposal and its adequate relation to the Tension?

 

I know it is a lot of questions, so anyone taking part in answering it will be a hero!

 

 

3 Replies
Keith Jarvis
09/18/2015

ogergo -

 

I'm eager to see responses - it seems that HolacracyOne is engaging much less in the updated Community of  Practice, but I've followed your post to be notified of other responses.

 

At the Practitioner Training we never tested Proposals, only Objections, so I have no true experience but have been in governance meeting where I thought that proposals might not be valid.

Bernard Marie Chiquet
09/20/2015

Hi ogergo, some quick answer. Would love to go deeper but I have not much available energy for this right now. 

 

"The Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal by asking questions of the Proposer."

In wich steps may the Facilitator do it?  I suppose the Objection round and the integration round... Any CCM may request the F to ask it?

Personally I use the "Clarifying Questions" step to ask several questions like:

• what's the tension behind the proposal?

• could you present an actual, specific, and reasonable example situation?

• the tension comes from/limits which one of your roles?

 

Any CCM may request the F to ask it?

Not specified, in the constitution. As a CCM I would ask myself the same 3 questions as before during the Clarifying Questions, state this is not a valid proposal in my reaction if I think so, object as Non Valid Governance, and show up in the integration step if needed.

 

Hope this helps,

Bernard Marie

 

 

Juliane Martina Röll
11/22/2015

There was also a longer conversation around this topic on GitHub: https://github.com/holacracyon...nstitution/issues/29

 

In our practise, "Clarifying Questions" seems to be the right place to ask the questions that Bernard Marie pointed out. If there is any doubt about the "logic" of an argument, the proposal always proceeds, and then perspectives on logic and illogic are integrated in Integration.