Dear Xavier,

The Lead Link of circle A can also appoint you as an additional Core Member for the period you need to do the audit/coaching (article 2.3.4).

No Governance needed, no (new) role needed and when you are done the Lead Link can remove the appointment.

Also you can ask the Circle Member if it is save enough to try ;-)

Hi Xavier,

"Structuring the Governance of the Circle to enact its Purpose and Accountabilities" is the first accountability of the Circle A LL (Constitution Appendix A/Definition of Core Roles/Lead Link).

The LL may make the proposal to create the "Governance Auditor" Role in the Circle A to enact this accountability. So the proposal will be perfectly valid as driven by a grounded tension.

Does that help?
Jean-Michel

Hi Xavier,

I'm not sure I got well your question, let me try. I understand you're a Core Circle Member in Circle A via a specific authorization process for being so. I also understand you do some audit/coaching activity on asynchronous proposals on circle A, as you said - which is an activity, right?

IMO one interesting question would be "Does someone consider such activity being inside the boundaries of the circle A"

My interpretation here is the following : If a Core Circle Member (either filling a role into such circle or not) considers that such activity is part of the Circle's work, then such Core Circle Member of Circle A may go to Governance to propose to add an accountability/role in order to reflect such activity.

So back to your question - "=> My understanding of "activity" is any action/project taken by any circlemember of the current Circle. Nothing else. Am I interpreting this right ?" - , I would say that an *activity* is work being done, and this work belongs to some circle and may be done either by a Circle Member of such circle or by another partner. Any Circle Member sensing a tension re such activity and considering such activity is part of the work to be done by such circle, may bring that to governance to more clearly reflect activity that is already happening.

-> See Section 3.2.1 "...Finally, a Proposal is always valid regardless of the preceding criteria if it is made solely to help evolve the Circle’s Governance to more clearly reflect activity that is already happening, or to trigger a new election for any Elected Role."

Hi,

Thanks for you replies, and sorry for not having kept this up.

I was not probably clear in my context, so let me rephrase it differently. In fact my issue is the right understanding of the  Section 3.2.1 "...Finally, a Proposal is always valid regardless of the preceding criteria if it is made solely to help evolve the Circle’s Governance to more clearly reflect activity that is already happening, or to trigger a new election for any Elected Role."

At the Coach training, we talked about "grounded" tension. In other words, to be valid, a tension must reflect a reality + to be inside the Circle's purpose. So you cannot come up with some governance proposal which is completely outside the scope/reality/activity of the circle.

Is it what that section 3.2.1 is about ?