Closed benoitpointet closed 4 years ago
@benoitpointet That's intentional; absent a policy otherwise, I think it's important that the default governance threshold leaves almost no room for doubt about the validity of a proposal passing, and an ambiguous "reasonable time" clause could leave a lot of room for doubt. Note there is a clause in that section though that reads "A Circle may adopt a Policy to define a time limit for raising Objections, after which anyone who has not responded is assumed to have no Objections." So it's possible, just requires a policy.
I'm closing this issue given that, but please do comment if you think it's worth further consideration and I'll open it back up for more community comments.
In the core desc of the gov process https://github.com/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/blob/master/Holacracy-Constitution.md#53-governance-process, which if I understand correctly, is the new definition of async gov, there's no notion of "reasonable time" to raise objections, while to clause is used in the "spending" and "impacting domains" sections.
I would see opportune to add the resonable time construct in 5.3.