search

holacracyone / Holacracy-Constitution

Platform for evolving and sharing the Holacracy Constitution through Open Source methodologies.
Other
415 stars 156 forks source link

Covering Unfilled Roles only made by Partner(s) - art 1.4.2 #443

Open bernardmariechiquet opened 2 years ago

bernardmariechiquet commented 2 years ago

I intuitively feel a tension in 1.4.2, not quite clear to me yet, and I'm counting on the interactions on this thread to clarify it or realize that it doesn't make sense.

It seems to me that there is a blind spot in the constitution. Indeed, when a circle contains several roles assigned to several people, it seems essential that there be at least one circle lead who is a Partner. Being a Partner is a condition for being a secretary, facilitator or circle representative. IMO, should also be one on at least one of circle leads. Hence my proposal in Article 1.4.2 https://github.com/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/pull/442/commits/e7acab586ed649558f111ebdfe58201eda5c7af3 Does this make sense to others ?

brianjrobertson commented 2 years ago

@bernardmariechiquet I think you're definitely right that there must be at least one circle lead who is a partner, but this is already covered by the constitution; to see how, shift focus and think about what happens in the super-circle. In that super-circle, if the role that is really a sub-circle has only non-partners assigned to it, then the circle leads of the super-circle automatically fill the role as well, and thus become circle leads in the sub-circle. And one of them must surely be a partner, because if not, the same logic applies all the way up the holarchy.

So, under the current rules, all circles will have at least one circle lead who is a partner. That said, I think you do bring up another question that's worth considering: should filling the circle lead role be limited to only partners, just like the Circle Rep role? (Note Facilitator and Secretary can be filled by non-partners in a couple different ways, you just can't elect non-partners into the role by default.) It'd be simple to achieve: we'd just change the starting sentence of §1.4 to specify only Partners serving as Role Leads become Circle Leads in the Role's internal Circle. But is there any indication that this is needed or useful? In the absence of experiential evidence indicating either way, I'd also consider arguments about overall constitutional construction - I think maintaining parallel construction and internal consistency whenever practical is important for many reasons, and often limits how many future problems come up. But does limiting Circle Lead to just partners actually achieve stronger internal consistency, or is it just a different but equally choice from what's there already (in which case I'd need experiential evidence from practice to consider a change)?