This “Constitution” defines rules and processes for the governance and operations of an organization. The “Ratifiers” are adopting these rules as the formal authority structure for the “Organization” specified upon the Constitution’s adoption, which may be an entire entity or a part of one that the Ratifiers have authority to govern and run. The Ratifiers and anyone else who agrees to take part in the governance and operations of the Organization (its “Partners”) may rely upon the authorities granted by this Constitution, and also agree to be bound by its duties and constraints.
The Organization’s Partners will typically perform work for the Organization by acting in one or more explicitly defined Roles. A “Role” is an organizational construct with a descriptive name and one or more of the following:
- (a) a “Purpose”, which is a capacity, potential, or unrealizable goal that the Role will pursue or express on behalf of the Organization.
- (b) one or more “Domains”, which are things the Role may exclusively control and regulate as its property, on behalf of the Organization.
- (c) one or more “Accountabilities”, which are ongoing activities the Role will enact, either in service of its own Purpose or to support other Roles in the Organization.
A “Circle” is a Role that may further break itself down by defining its own contained Roles to achieve its Purpose, control its Domains, and enact its Accountabilities.
A Circle may also contain “Policies”, which are either grants of authority that allow others to control or cause a material impact within one of the Circle's Domains, or limits on how others may do so when otherwise authorized. Solely for the purpose of limiting a Circle’s own Roles, each Circle has an automatic Domain over its own internal functions and activities.
The collection of Roles and Policies within a Circle make up its acting “Governance”. No one may change the Governance of a Circle except through the “Governance Process” described in Article 3 or the process for defining an initial Governance structure described in Article 4.
When a Circle grants a Domain to one of its Roles, a Partner filling that Role may control that Domain on behalf of the Circle, including defining Policies for that Domain outside of the Circle's Governance Process. The Circle retains the right to amend or remove any such Domain delegations, or to define or modify Policies acting upon that Domain itself. Any such Policies defined by the Circle trump any Policies defined by the Role, and these Circle-level Policies may only be modified through the Circle's Governance Process.
Each Circle has a “Lead Link Role” with the definition given in Appendix A and the further responsibilities and authorities defined in this Section. The person filling the Lead Link Role, while acting in that capacity, is referred to as the Circle’s “Lead Link”.
A Circle’s Lead Link inherits the Purpose and any Accountabilities on the Circle itself, and controls any Domains defined on the Circle, just as if the Circle were only a Role and the Lead Link filled that Role. However, this only applies to the extent that those Accountabilities and Domains have not been placed upon a Role within the Circle or otherwise delegated. Further, the Lead Link may not define or modify Policies on the Circle's Domains, except via its Governance Process.
A Circle’s Lead Link may define relative priorities for the Circle.
In addition, the Lead Link may define a more general “Strategy” for the Circle, or multiple Strategies, which are heuristics that guide the Circle’s Roles in self-identifying priorities on an ongoing basis.
To the extent the Circle itself has the authority to dispose of the Organization's property, limit its rights, or spend its tangible resources, this authority vests with the Circle's Lead Link, who may then further authorize its Roles to do so.
A Circle may not add Accountabilities or other functions to its own Lead Link Role, or modify the Role’s Purpose, or remove the Role entirely.
However, a Circle may remove any Accountabilities, Domains, authorities, or functions of its Lead Link Role, either by placing them on another Role within the Circle, or by defining an alternate means of enacting them. When this occurs, it automatically removes the relevant element or authority from the Lead Link Role, for as long as the delegation remains in place.
Each Circle includes a “Facilitator Role”, a “Secretary Role”, and a “Rep Link Role” with the definitions given in Appendix A. These are the Circle’s “Elected Roles”, and the person filling each becomes the Circle’s “Facilitator”, “Secretary”, or “Rep Link” when acting in the capacity of the Elected Role.
The Facilitator of each Circle will facilitate regular elections to elect a Partner into each of its Elected Roles, using the process and rules defined in Article 3.
All Partners who fill an unelected Role within the Circle are eligible for election into its Elected Roles, except for the Lead Link of a Circle, who may not be elected as its Facilitator or Rep Link.
A Partner may hold multiple Elected Roles in a Circle.
During the election process, the Facilitator will specify a term for each election. After a term expires, the Secretary is responsible for promptly triggering a new election for that Elected Role. However, even before a term has expired, any participant in the Circle's Governance Process may trigger a new election at any time, using the process defined in Article 3.
A Circle may add Accountabilities or Domains to its own Elected Roles, as well as amend or remove those additions. However, no Circle may amend or remove any Purpose, Domain, Accountabilities, or authorities granted to an Elected Role by this Constitution, nor remove an Elected Role entirely.
A surrogate may temporarily act as Facilitator or Secretary if the Role is unfilled, or when the person who normally fills the Role is unavailable for a Circle meeting or feels unable or unwilling to enact the Role’s duties.
In any given instance where a surrogate is needed, the surrogate is, in this order of precedence:
- (a) someone explicitly specified by the person to be replaced; or
- (b) for Facilitator, the acting Secretary of the Circle, and for Secretary, the acting Facilitator of the Circle;
- (c) the Lead Link of the Circle; or
- (d) the first Partner to declare he or she is acting as the surrogate.
The Lead Link of a Circle may assign people to fill the Roles defined by that Circle and may revoke these assignments at any time, unless these authorities have been limited or delegated.
Whenever a Role defined by a Circle is unfilled, the person in the Role that holds a Domain on assignments into the unfilled Role is automatically considered to fill it until a new assignment is made.
Multiple people may be assigned to simultaneously fill any Role defined by the Circle, as long as that will not decrease the clarity of who should enact the Accountabilities and authorities of the Role in common situations.
As one way of maintaining that clarity, a Lead Link may specify a “Focus” along with each assignment, which is an area or context for that person to focus within while executing in the Role.
When a Role assignment includes a Focus, the Purpose, Accountabilities, and Domains defined for the Role apply just within the specified Focus for that particular person.
When you fill a Role, you may resign from the Role at any time, unless you’ve agreed otherwise, by giving notice to whoever controls assignments to that Role.
Each Role has one or more “Role Representatives” who will represent the Role within the Governance Process. By default, all Partners who fill a Role become its Role Representatives. However, the following exclusions may reduce this default representation:
- (a) For Multi-Filled Roles: If multiple Partners are assigned to the same Role in a Circle, the Circle may enact a Policy that limits how many of them are its Role Representatives. However, the Policy must allow at least one of the Partners filling the Role to be its Role Representative, and must specify how that representative will be determined.
- (b) For Minor Allocations: If the Role that controls assignment into another Role reasonably believes that other Role only requires a minor, nearly insignificant amount of attention from a Partner to fill effectively, they may exclude that Partner from serving as a Role Representative for that Role.
If a Role defined by a Circle has no Role Representative for any reason, the Lead Link of that Circle becomes the Role Representative for that Role until another is in place.
In any case, a Role Representative represents the Role as a Rep Link for anyone filling that Role who is not a Role Representative, unless relevant Governance creates an alternate pathway to provide a comparable function.
A Circle may expand its defined Roles into full Circles, via its Governance Process. When it does, the new Circle becomes its “Sub-Circle”, while it becomes the “Super-Circle” of that new Sub-Circle.
Through its Governance Process, a Circle may:
- (a) modify the Purpose, Domains, or Accountabilities of a Sub-Circle; or
- (b) move its own defined Roles or Policies into a Sub-Circle, or move any from within the Sub-Circle into itself; or
- (c) remove a Sub-Circle entirely, or collapse it from a Circle back into just a Role.
Beyond these allowed changes, a Circle may not modify any Roles or Policies held within a Sub-Circle.
A Circle’s Lead Link may assign someone to fill the Lead Link Role for each Sub-Circle, using the same rules that apply when the Lead Link assigns into any other Role defined by the Circle.
Each Circle may elect a Rep Link to its Super-Circle.
Both the Lead Link of the Sub-Circle and the Rep Link elected by the Sub-Circle become Role Representatives for the Sub-Circle within the Circle. However, only the Lead Link holds the responsibilities that come with the Sub-Circle's Purpose and Accountabilities.
A Circle may adopt a Policy to invite an external Role to participate in its Governance Process, or to require one of its Sub-Circles to do so. While such a Policy exists, the Role Representatives of the invited Role may participate in the Governance Process of the specified Circle, as if the invited Role was also within that Circle.
As a Partner assigned to a Role in a Circle, you have the authority to take any action or make any decision you reasonably believe is useful to enact your Role’s Purpose or Accountabilities in service of the Organization, as long as you don't break any rules defined in this Constitution.
While acting in a Role, you may not violate any constraints defined in a Policy of the Circle containing the Role, or enforced upon the Circle itself.
In service of your Role, you have the authority to use and impact your Role's Domains.
You may also use and impact any Domain that the Circle containing your Role owns, or any Domain the Circle itself is authorized to impact, as long as that Domain has not been further delegated to another Role within your Circle.
You cannot exert control or cause a material impact within a Domain delegated to another Role within your Circle or owned by another sovereign entity, unless you have their permission. Instead of asking for permission directly, you may also publish your intent to take a specific action, and see if anyone with a relevant Domain asks you not to within a reasonable timeframe. If no one does, then, while taking that specific action, you have permission to impact any Domains owned by any Role in the Organization that customarily processes messages in the communication channel you used.
While energizing your Role, you may not dispose of any significant property or spend any tangible resources of the Organization, nor may you significantly limit any rights of the Organization, unless you are authorized to do so by a Role or Policy with the explicit authority to allow it. This even applies to property, rights, and tangible resources within Domains assigned to your Role.
As a Partner of the Organization, you have the following responsibilities for each Role that you are assigned to and agree to fill:
You are responsible for monitoring how your Role’s Purpose and Accountabilities are expressed, and comparing that to your vision of their ideal potential expression, to identify gaps between the current reality and a potential you sense (each gap is a “Tension”). You are also responsible for trying to resolve those Tensions by using the authorities and other mechanisms available to you under this Constitution.
You are responsible for regularly considering how to enact your Role's Purpose and each of your Role’s Accountabilities, by defining:
- (a) “Next-Actions”, which are actions you could execute immediately and that would be useful to execute immediately, at least in the absence of competing priorities; and
- (b) “Projects”, which are specific outcomes that require multiple sequential actions to achieve and that would be useful to work towards, at least in the absence of competing priorities.
You are responsible for regularly considering how to complete each Project you are actively working towards for your Role, including by defining any Next-Actions useful to move the Project forward.
You are responsible for capturing and tracking all Projects and Next-Actions for your Role in a database or similar tangible form, and for regularly reviewing and updating that database to maintain it as a trusted list of the Role’s active and potential work. You are also responsible for tracking any Tensions you identify for your Role, at least until you process them into desired Projects or Next-Actions, or otherwise resolve them.
Whenever you have time available to act in your Role, you are responsible for considering the potential Next-Actions you could efficiently and effectively do at that point in time, and executing whichever you believe would add the most value to the Organization.
As a Partner of the Organization, you have the following duties to others in your Organization, but only when they’re acting on behalf of one of their Roles and name that Role in any explicit request.
You have a duty to provide transparency in any of the following areas upon request:
- (a) Projects & Next-Actions: You must share any Projects and Next-Actions you are tracking for your Roles.
- (b) Relative Priority: You must share your judgment of the relative priority of any Projects or Next-Actions tracked for your Roles vs. any other potential activities competing for your attention or resources.
- (c) Projections: You must provide a projection of the date you expect to complete any Project or Next-Action tracked for any of your Roles. A rough estimate is sufficient, considering your current context and priorities, but without detailed analysis or planning. This projection is not a binding commitment in any way, and unless Governance says otherwise, you have no duty to track the projection, manage your work to achieve it, or follow-up with the recipient if something changes.
- (d) Checklist Items: You must verify whether you have completed any regular, recurring actions that you routinely perform in service of your Roles or your other duties to the Organization. If explicitly requested, you must continue to share these verifications regularly for the specific recurring actions so requested, until you determine they are no longer relevant or useful.
- (e) Metrics: You must publish any metrics related to the work of your role or your other duties to the Organization, if you have access to the requested data without significant overhead beyond what's otherwise required of you. If explicitly requested, you must continue to share these metrics regularly, until you determine they are no longer relevant or useful.
- (f) Progress Updates: You must share a brief summary of progress you've made towards any Accountability or Project of one of your Roles since the last update you published or shared with the requester. If explicitly requested, you must continue to share these updates regularly for the specific Accountability or Project so requested, until you determine they are no longer relevant or useful.
You have a duty to promptly process messages and requests from your fellow Partners, as follows:
- (a) Requests for Processing: Other Partners may ask you to process the Purpose or any Accountability or Project of a Role you fill. If you have no Next-Actions tracked to enact it, you must identify, capture, and communicate a Next-Action if there are any reasonable ones you could take. If there are not, you must instead share what you’re waiting on, which must be a Next-Action or Project tracked by another Role, or a specific event or condition that must happen before you can take further Next-Actions. Additionaly, if the Next-Action or waiting-on you share is one step towards a broader outcome and you aren't already tracking that as a Project, you must also capture and communicate that Project.
- (b) Requests for Projects & Next-Actions: Other Partners may ask you to take on a specific Next-Action or Project in one of your Roles. If you believe that Next-Action or Project would make sense to work towards to express your Role's Purpose or Accountabilities, at least in the absence of competing priorities, then you must accept and track it. If not, then you must either explain your reasoning, or capture and communicate a different Next-Action or Project that you believe will meet the requester’s objective.
- (c) Requests to Impact Domain: Other Partners may ask to impact a Domain controlled by one of your Roles, and you must allow it if you see no Objections to the request (as defined in Section 3.2). If you do, you must explain any Objections to the requester.
- (d) Requests for Information: Other Partners may ask you questions or request information, and you must respond in good faith with at least brief answers or relevant information that's readily available to you.
You have a duty to prioritize where to focus your attention and resources in alignment with the following constraints:
- (a) Processing Over Execution: You must generally prioritize processing inbound messages from fellow Partners over executing your own Next-Actions. However, you may temporarily defer processing in order to batch process messages in a single time block or at a more convenient time, as long as your processing is still reasonably prompt. Processing means engaging in the duties described in this section, including considering the message, defining and capturing Next-Actions or Projects when appropriate, and, upon request, responding with how the message was processed. Processing does not mean executing upon captured Next-Actions and Projects, which is not covered by this prioritization rule.
- (b) Requested Meetings Over Execution: On request of a fellow Partner, you must prioritize attending any meeting defined in this Constitution over executing your own Next-Actions. However, you may still decline the request if you already have plans scheduled over the meeting time, or if the request was for an ongoing series or pattern of meetings rather than a specific meeting instance.
- (c) Circle Needs Over Individual Goals: You must integrate and align with any official prioritizations or Strategies of the Circle, such as those specified by the Circle’s Lead Link, when assessing how to deploy your time, attention, and other resources to your work within the Circle.
All of your responsibilities and constraints as a Partner of the Organization are defined in this Constitution, and in the Governance that results from it. No former or implicit expectations or constraints carry any weight or authority, unless a Circle’s Governance explicitly empowers them, or they come from a basic obligation or contractual agreement you personally have to or with the Organization.
In service of one of their Roles, any Partner may convene a “Tactical Meeting” to facilitate engaging other Roles in their responsibilities and duties.
The Partner convening a Tactical Meeting must name the specific Roles invited to that Tactical Meeting, and the Role Representatives of those Roles are invited to attend and participate in the meeting. The convener must also invite the Facilitator of a relevant Circle to lead the meeting. There is no advance notice or quorum required for a Tactical Meeting, unless a relevant Policy says otherwise.
Unless a Policy says otherwise, anyone facilitating a Tactical Meeting must use the following process:
- (a) Check-in Round: The Facilitator allows each participant in turn to share their current state or thoughts, or offer another type of opening comment for the meeting. Responses are not allowed.
- (b) Checklist Review: The Facilitator asks each participant to verify the completion of any recurring actions that any other participant has asked them to regularly report on.
- (c) Metrics Review: The Facilitator asks each participant to share data for any metrics that any other participant has asked them to regularly report on.
- (d) Progress Updates: The Facilitator asks each participant to highlight progress towards achieving any Project or expressing any Accountability of any of the participant’s Roles invited to the meeting. Participants may only share progress made since the last report given, and not the general status of a Project or Accountability. Each participant may decide which Projects or Accountabilities are worth reporting on, however if another participant has an active request for regular updates on a specific Project or Accountability, that one must be included.
- (e) Build Agenda: The Facilitator builds an agenda of Tensions to process in the Tactical Meeting by soliciting agenda items from all participants. This must be done within the meeting and not beforehand. Each participant may add as many agenda items as desired by providing a short label for each, without explanation or discussion. Participants may add additional agenda items even once processing one has started, in between the processing of any existing agenda items.
- (f) Triage Issues: To process each agenda item, the Facilitator holds space for the agenda item owner to engage others in their Roles and duties, until the agenda item owner finds an adequate pathway for resolving their Tension. However, the agenda item owner may only process Tensions and make requests to serve a Role that was explicitly invited to the meeting. Further, within the meeting each participant only has duties that come from Roles they fill that were explicitly invited to the meeting, or that exist regardless of the Roles they fill. The Facilitator manages the time allocated to each agenda item to allow space for processing every item on the agenda, and may cut off the processing of any item that’s taking more than its due share of the remaining meeting time.
- (g) Closing Round: The Facilitator allows each participant in turn to share a closing reflection or other thought triggered by the meeting. Responses are not allowed.
A Policy may specify an alternate process or amend this default process for any standing Tactical Meeting within its authority to govern.
If an unelected Role invited to a Tactical Meeting is unrepresented in the meeting for any reason, the Lead Link of the Circle holding that Role may act within that Role to cover the gap. If the Lead Link is also unrepresented, any Next-Actions or Projects captured for the Role become requests for the Role to process after the meeting.
As a Partner of the Organization, in some cases you are authorized to act outside of the authority of your Roles, or even to break the rules of this Constitution. By acting under this extended authority you are taking “Individual Action”, and you are bound by the following rules:
You may only take Individual Action when all of the following are true:
- (a) You are acting in good faith to serve the Purpose or express the Accountabilities of some Role within the Organization, or of the overall Organization itself.
- (b) You reasonably believe your action would resolve or prevent more Tension for the Organization than it would likely create.
- (c) Your action would not cause the Organization to spend tangible resources, dispose of its assets, or limit its rights, beyond what you’re already authorized to so cause.
- (d) If your action would violate any Policies or impact any Domains you aren't already authorized to impact, you reasonably believe that you can’t delay the action long enough to request any permissions normally required, or to propose a Governance change to allow your action, without losing much of its potential value.
Upon taking Individual Action, you have a duty to explain your action and the intent behind it to any Partner who fills a Role that may be significantly impacted. Upon the request of any of those Partners, you also have a duty to take any reasonable additional actions to assist in resolving any Tensions created by your Individual Action.
If your Individual Action was effectively acting within another Role, or violated a Domain or a Policy, then you must cease from continuing to take similar Individual Action upon request of whoever normally controls that Role, Domain, or Policy, or upon request of the Lead Link of the Circle holding the affected entity.
If your Individual Action is an instance of a recurring activity or ongoing function needed by a Circle, and that activity or function is not already explicitly called for by the Circle’s Governance, then you are responsible for taking follow-up steps to remove that gap. That follow-up could include proposing Governance to cover the need, or taking steps to remove the need for this activity or function to happen in the first place.
After taking Individual Action, you have a duty to prioritize doing the corollary requirements defined in this section higher than doing any of your regular work. However, the Lead Link of whatever Circle fully contains all Roles that were significantly impacted by your action may still change this default priority.
The Governance Process of a Circle has the power to:
- (a) define, amend, or remove the Circle’s Roles and Sub-Circles; and
- (b) define, amend, or remove the Circle’s Policies; and
- (c) hold elections for the Circle’s Elected Roles.
Only these outputs are valid Governance for a Circle; no one may capture other outputs within the Circle’s Governance records.
Any Role Representative within a Circle may propose changing its Governance by circulating a “Proposal” to all other Role Representatives within the Circle, thus acting as “Proposer”. Before the Proposal is adopted, those other Role Representatives must have the opportunity to raise Tensions about adopting the Proposal. Each Tension so raised is considered an “Objection” if it meets the criteria defined herein, and the person who raised it becomes the “Objector”.
Proposals are considered adopted and amend Governance only once no Objections are so raised. If Objections are raised, the Proposer and each Objector must find a way to address the Objections before the Proposal is adopted. After any such effort, all Role Representatives within the Circle must have another opportunity to raise further Objections to the Proposal before its adoption.
A Proposer may make a Proposal within a “Governance Meeting” of the Circle.
Alternatively, a Proposer may distribute a Proposal to all required Role Representatives asynchronously, outside of a Governance Meeting, using any written communication channel approved for this purpose by the Circle’s Secretary. When this happens, the Facilitator may either apply the same process and rules used within a Governance Meeting, or may allow each participant to directly declare whether or not he or she has Objections to integrate. Further, at any point before an asynchronous Proposal is adopted, any participant may stop the asynchronous processing by requesting the Proposer escalate the Proposal to a Governance Meeting, and notifying the Circle’s Secretary.
A Circle may adopt Policies to further constrain when or how Proposals may be made or processed outside of a Governance Meeting. However, no Policy may limit the right to stop asynchronous processing by escalating to a Governance Meeting. A Circle may also use a Policy to create a time limit for responding to asynchronous Proposals, upon which any asynchronous Proposal is automatically adopted if no Objections or escalation requests are raised.
To be valid for processing, a Proposal must resolve or reduce a Tension sensed by the Proposer and help the Circle better express its Purpose or one of its Accountabilities. In addition, a Proposal must normally help the Proposer better express the Purpose or an Accountability of one of the Proposer’s Roles in the Circle. However, a Proposal may alternatively help another Role Representative better express one of their Roles in the Circle, but only if that person has granted the Proposer permission to represent that Role.
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.
The Facilitator may test the validity of a Proposal by asking the Proposer questions. For a Proposal to survive the test, the Proposer 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. 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. The Facilitator may not make a judgment on the basis of their accuracy, nor on whether the Proposal would adequately address the Tension.
Some Tensions do not count as Objections, and may be ignored during the processing of a Proposal. A Tension only counts as an Objection if it meets all of the criteria defined in (a) through (d) below, or the special criteria defined in (e):
- (a) If the Tension were unaddressed, the capacity of the Circle to express its Purpose or enact its Accountabilities would degrade. Thus, the Tension is not just triggered by a better idea or a potential for further improvement, but because the Proposal would actually move the Circle backwards in its current capacity. For this criteria, decreasing clarity counts as degrading capacity, although merely failing to improve clarity does not.
- (b) The Tension does not already exist for the Circle even in the absence of the Proposal. Thus, the Tension would be created specifically by adopting the Proposal, and would not exist were the Proposal withdrawn.
- (c) The Tension is triggered just by presently known facts or events, without regard to a prediction of what might happen in the future. However, relying on predictions is allowed when no opportunity to adequately sense and respond is likely to exist in the future before significant impact could result.
- (d) The Tension limits the Objector's capacity to express the Purpose or an Accountability of a Role in the Circle that the Objector either represents or has received permission to represent from a Role Representative who normally represents the Role.
However, regardless of the above criteria, a Tension about adopting a Proposal always counts as an Objection if:
- (e) Processing or adopting the Proposal breaks the rules defined in this Constitution, or prompts the Circle or its members to act outside of the authority granted under this Constitution. For example, Next-Actions, Projects, and specific operational decisions are typically not valid Governance outputs as defined in Section 3.1, so anyone involved could raise an Objection that a Proposal to enact these outputs would violate the rules of the Constitution.
The Facilitator may test the validity of a claimed Objection by asking the Objector questions. For a claimed Objection to survive the test, the Objector must be able to present a reasonable argument for why it meets each specific criteria required of an Objection. The Facilitator must discard an Objection if the Facilitator deems the Objector has failed to meet this threshold.
When assessing the validity of a claimed Objection, the Facilitator may only judge whether the Objector presented the required arguments, and whether they were presented with logical reasoning and are thus reasonable. The Facilitator may not make a judgment on the basis of an argument’s accuracy or the importance of addressing it.
However, when an Objection is claimed on the basis of a Proposal violating the Constitution, per Section 3.2.4(e), the Facilitator may ask the Circle’s Secretary to interpret if the Proposal does indeed violate the Constitution. If the Secretary rules that it does not, the Facilitator must then dismiss the Objection.
When an Objection to a Proposal is raised, the following additional rules apply during the search for a resolution:
- (a) The Facilitator must test an Objection if requested by any participant, and discard it if it fails to meet the validity criteria described in this section.
- (b) The Objector must attempt to find an amendment to the Proposal that will resolve the Objection and still address the Proposer’s Tension. Others may help. If the Facilitator concludes that the Objector is not making a good faith effort to find a potential amendment at any point, then the Facilitator must deem the Objection abandoned and continue processing the Proposal as if the Objection had not been raised.
- (c) Any participant may ask the Proposer clarifying questions about the Tension behind the Proposal, or about any examples the Proposer shared to illustrate the Tension. If the Facilitator concludes that the Proposer is not making a good faith effort to answer those questions at any point, then the Facilitator must deem the Proposal invalid for processing and abandoned.
- (d) The Objector may suggest an amended Proposal, and offer reasonable arguments for why it should resolve or prevent the Tension in each specific situation the Proposer used to illustrate the Tension. Then, upon the Objector’s request, the Proposer must present a reasonable argument for why the amended Proposal would fail to resolve or prevent the Tension in at least one specific situation already presented. Alternatively, the Proposer may add an additional example that the amended Proposal would not resolve, but which still meets the criteria for processing a Proposal required by Section 3.2.2. If the Facilitator concludes that the Proposer has failed to meet one of these thresholds, then the Facilitator must deem the Proposal invalid for processing and abandoned.
The Secretary of a Circle is responsible for scheduling Governance Meetings to enact the Circle’s Governance Process.
In addition to any regular Governance Meetings the Secretary schedules, the Secretary is responsible for scheduling additional special Governance Meetings promptly upon request of any Role Representative within the Circle.
The Facilitator is responsible for presiding over all Governance Meetings in alignment with the following rules and any relevant Policies of the Circle.
The Role Representatives of all Roles within a Circle are entitled to fully participate in all Governance Meetings of a Circle. The acting Facilitator and Secretary are also entitled to fully participate for the duration of a Governance Meeting and become Role Representatives of those Roles, even if they are not normally Role Representatives within the Circle.
In addition, as a Lead Link or Rep Link into a Circle, you may invite someone into that Circle's Governance Meeting, and your invited guest becomes a full participant for the duration of the Governance Meeting or until you withdraw the invitation. You may only extend this invitation to one person at a time, and only to aid in the processing of a specific Tension affecting the entity you are linked from. You must sense this Tension yourself as well, and believe it makes sense to process in the Circle. If these conditions are met, your guest becomes a Role Representative for your link Role in the Governance Meeting, but only while directly processing that specific Tension.
Beyond the above, no one else is allowed to participate in a Circle’s Governance Meetings unless explicitly invited by a Policy of the Circle.
A Circle may only conduct its Governance Process in a meeting if the Secretary has given all authorized participants reasonable advance notice that a Governance Meeting will be held, including its time and location.
Beyond this notice requirement, there is no quorum required for a Circle to conduct a Governance Meeting, unless one is specified by a Policy of the Circle.
Anyone who does not attend a Governance Meeting counts as having fully participated without raising Objections to any Proposals made within the meeting.
The Facilitator must use the following process for Governance Meetings:
- (a) Check-in Round: The Facilitator allows each participant in turn to share their current state or thoughts, or offer another type of opening comment for the meeting. Responses are not allowed.
- (b) Agenda Building & Processing: The Facilitator builds an agenda of Tensions to process, then processes each agenda item in turn.
- (c) Closing Round: The Facilitator allows each participant in turn to share a closing reflection or other thought triggered by the meeting. Responses are not allowed.
At any point during this process, a participant may request a "Time Out" pause, which the Facilitator may choose to grant or deny. During a Time Out, participants may discuss administrative issues or the rules of this Constitution, but may not discuss the content of a Tension, Proposal, or Objection to work towards a resolution. The Facilitator may end a Time Out at any point and resume the normal meeting process.
A Policy of the Circle may add to this process, but may not conflict with any of the steps or other rules defined in this Article of the Constitution.
The Facilitator must build an agenda of Tensions to process within a Governance Meeting by soliciting and capturing agenda items from all participants. This must be done within the meeting and not beforehand, and each participant may add as many agenda items as desired. Participants may add additional agenda items during the meeting as well, in between the processing of any existing agenda items.
- (a) Agenda Item Format: Each agenda item in a Governance Meeting represents one Tension to process, sensed by the participant who added it to the agenda. When adding an agenda item, a participant may only provide a short label for the Tension, and may not explain or discuss the Tension further until processing of that agenda item actually begins.
- (b) Ordering the Agenda: The Facilitator may determine the order in which to process agenda items, using any process or criteria the Facilitator deems appropriate. However, the Facilitator must place any agenda item calling for an election of any of the Circle’s Elected Roles before all other agenda items, if requested by any meeting participant. Further, if the meeting is a special Governance Meeting scheduled at the request of one participant, the Facilitator must place all agenda items raised by that participant before any raised by others, unless that participant allows otherwise.
- (c) Processing Agenda Items: Once the Facilitator determines an initial order for the agenda, the Facilitator must lead participants through processing each agenda item, one at a time. To process an agenda item that calls for an election, the Facilitator must use the “Integrative Election Process” defined in Section 3.3.6. To process any other agenda item, the Facilitator must use the “Integrative Decision-Making Process” defined in Section 3.3.5.
The Facilitator must enact the Integrative Decision-Making Process as follows:
- (a) Present Proposal: First, the Proposer may describe the Tension and present a Proposal to address the Tension. If the Proposer requests help crafting a Proposal, the Facilitator may allow discussion or another collaborative process to assist. However, the Facilitator must focus this activity solely on crafting an initial Proposal for the Proposer’s Tension, and not on addressing other Tensions or integrating others’ concerns into the Proposal.
- (b) Clarifying Questions: Once the Proposer makes a Proposal, the other participants may ask clarifying questions to better understand the Proposal or the Tension behind it. The Proposer may answer each question, or may decline to do so. The Facilitator must disallow any reactions or opinions expressed about the Proposal, and prevent discussion of any kind. Any participant may also ask the Secretary to read the captured Proposal or clarify any existing Governance, during this step or at any other time when the participant is allowed to speak, and the Secretary must do so.
- (c) Reaction Round: Once there are no further clarifying questions, each participant except the Proposer may share reactions to the Proposal, one person at a time. The Facilitator must immediately stop and disallow any out-of-turn comments, any attempts to engage others in a dialog or exchange of any sort, and any reactions to other reactions instead of to the Proposal.
- (d) Amend & Clarify: After the reaction round, the Proposer may share comments in response to the reactions and make amendments to the Proposal. However, the primary intent of any amendments must be to better address the Proposer’s Tension, and not Tensions raised by others. During this step, the Facilitator must immediately stop and disallow any comments by anyone other than the Proposer or Secretary, and any engagement by the Secretary must focus solely on capturing the amended Proposal.
- (e) Objection Round: Next, each participant, one at a time, may raise potential Objections to adopting the Proposal. The Facilitator must stop and disallow discussion or responses of any sort. The Facilitator may test Objections as described in Section 3.2.5, and must capture any valid Objections that remain after testing. If there are no valid Objections, the Secretary records the Proposal as adopted Governance for the Circle.
- (f) Integration: If there are valid Objections, the Facilitator then facilitates a discussion to amend the Proposal to resolve each Objection, one at a time. The Facilitator marks an Objection as resolved once the Objector confirms that the amended Proposal would not trigger the Objection, and the Proposer confirms that the amended Proposal would still address the Proposer’s Tension. During the discussion, the Facilitator must apply the rules of integration described in Section 3.2.6. Once all captured Objections are addressed, the Facilitator moves back to the Objection round to check for new Objections to the amended Proposal.
The Facilitator must enact the Integrative Election Process as follows:
- (a) Describe Role: First, the Facilitator must identify the target Role and term for the election. The Facilitator may also describe the functions of the target Role, and present other relevant information about the Role.
- (b) Fill Out Ballots: Each participant must then fill out a ballot to nominate whomever the participant believes is the best fit for the Role among all eligible candidates. Each participant must label the ballot with his or her own name as well, and no one may abstain or nominate multiple people. Before and during this step, the Facilitator must promptly stop all comments or discussion about potential candidates or nominations.
- (c) Nomination Round: Once all ballots are submitted, the Facilitator must share the contents of each ballot, one at a time, with all participants. When the Facilitator shares a nomination, the nominator must state why he or she believes that candidate would be a good fit for the Role. The Facilitator must stop any responses or other comments, as well as any comments by a nominator about other potential candidates besides the nominee.
- (d) Nomination Change Round: Once all nominations are shared, the Facilitator must give each participant the opportunity to change his or her nomination. A participant making a change may explain his or her reason for selecting a new candidate, but the Facilitator must stop any other comments or discussion.
- (e) Make a Proposal: Next, the Facilitator must count the nominations and make a Proposal to elect the candidate with the most nominations for the specified term. If there is a tie for the most nominations, then the Facilitator may do any one of the following: (i) if only one of the tied candidates has nominated himself or herself, propose that person; or (ii) if the person currently filling the Role is among those tied, propose that person; or (iii) blindly select one of the tied candidates randomly, and propose that person; or (iv) go back to the previous step and require each participant who nominated someone other than a tied candidate to change that nomination to one of the tied candidates, then continue back to this step and re-apply its rules.
- (f) Process Proposal: Once the Facilitator makes a Proposal to elect a candidate, the Facilitator must move to the Integrative Decision-Making Process to resolve that Proposal. However, the Facilitator must start directly with the Objection round, and, if the proposed candidate is present, the Facilitator must ask the candidate for Objections last. If any Objections are raised, the Facilitator may choose to process them normally, or to discard the Proposal either immediately after the Objection round or at any point during the integration step. If the Facilitator opts to discard the Proposal, the Facilitator must go back to the prior step in this process, discard all nominations for the prior candidate, and follow the rules of the prior step to select another candidate to propose instead.
Governance Meetings are primarily intended to support a Circle’s Governance Process. As long as it does not distract from this intended focus, any participant may nonetheless accept Projects or Next-Actions during a Governance Meeting, or make other operational decisions that are outside the scope of the Circle’s Governance Process. However, the Secretary may not capture any operational outputs or decisions in the formal Governance minutes or records of the Circle. Further, operational outputs and decisions made in a Governance Meeting carry no more or less weight or authority than those made outside of a Governance Meeting.
As a Partner of the Organization, you may use your reasonable judgment to interpret this Constitution and any Governance within the Organization, including how these apply within a specific situation, and then act based on your interpretation. However, the following additional terms apply:
If your interpretation conflicts with another Partner's, either party may ask the Secretary of any affected Circle to rule on which interpretation to use. Once a Secretary had made such a ruling, it trumps your own and you are responsible for aligning with it until any underlying Governance changes.
A Circle’s Secretary may overrule an interpretation given by a Secretary of any Sub-Circle. If two Secretaries give conflicting rulings and one is from the Secretary of a Circle that ultimately contains the other Circle, then you are responsible for aligning with the interpretation given by the broader Circle’s Secretary.
When ruling on an interpretation, a Secretary may choose to publish that interpretation and the logic behind it in writing. If published, the Secretary of that Circle and the Secretaries of any contained Circles are responsible for attempting to align any future rulings with the previously published logic and interpretations.
A Secretary may only contradict previously published logic or interpretations once a compelling new argument or circumstance supports a reversal. If such a contradiction is also published, its logic and interpretations become the new standard that all future rulings must align with.
Anyone filling a Role in a Circle may ask its Secretary to rule on the validity of any Governance of the Circle or any Role or Sub-Circle ultimately contained by the Circle. Upon such a request, if the Secretary concludes the Governance conflicts with the rules of this Constitution, the Secretary must then strike the offending Governance from the acting Governance record. After doing so, the Secretary must promptly communicate what was struck and why to all Partners filling Roles within the Circle that held the offending Governance.
By adopting this Constitution, the Ratifiers cede their authority to govern and run the Organization or direct its Partners, and may no longer do so except through authority granted to them under the Constitution’s rules and processes. However, as an exception to this rule, the Ratifiers may continue to hold and exercise any authority that they do not have the power to delegate, such as anything required by policies outside of their control, or by the Organization’s bylaws.
Upon adopting this Constitution, the Ratifiers must establish an initial Circle to express the overall Purpose of the Organization. This “Anchor Circle” becomes the broadest Circle in the Organization, and automatically controls all Domains that the Organization itself controls. The Anchor Circle has no Super-Circle, and does not elect a Rep Link.
The Ratifiers may either appoint a Lead Link for the Anchor Circle, or leave the Anchor Circle without a Lead Link.
If the Ratifiers leave the Anchor Circle without a Lead Link, all decisions that normally require Lead Link authority become valid outputs of the Circle’s Governance Process. Any Role within the Circle may thus exercise Lead Link authority operationally by making a Proposal via the Circle's Governance Process.
Further, in an Anchor Circle with no Lead Link, the authority Roles normally have to impact undelegated Circle Domains is revoked. Instead, the Circle’s Roles may only impact its Domains if a Policy explicitly allows the impact, or, alternatively, by making a Proposal to allow a specific impact using the Circle’s Governance Process.
The Purpose of the Organization is the deepest creative potential it can sustainably express in the world, given all of the constraints acting upon it and everything available to it. That includes its history, current capacities, available resources, Partners, character, culture, business structure, brand, market awareness, and all other relevant resources or factors.
The Lead Link of the Anchor Circle is accountable for discovering the Purpose of the Organization, and controls this Purpose definition as a Domain of the Lead Link Role. If the Anchor Circle has no Lead Link, this Accountability is retained by the Ratifiers until delegated to a Role within the Circle, and the Domain is held by the Anchor Circle itself.
The Lead Link of the Anchor Circle has the authority to name the Circle, clarify its Domains, and add or modify its Accountabilities.
The Lead Link of the Anchor Circle may also appoint his or her own replacement as desired, unless otherwise specified by the Ratifiers.
Either the Ratifiers or the Lead Link of the Anchor Circle may define an initial structure and other Governance for the Organization, outside of the usual Governance Process required by this Constitution. If that initial structure includes any other Circles, the Lead Links of those Circles may do the same within their Circles. This authority may only be used to define an initial structure for a Circle to start from, before the Circle has begun conducting its Governance Process.
Any existing policies and systems the Organization has in effect before adopting this Constitution continue in full force after adoption, even if they include constraints or authorities that are not reflected in Governance records. This may include compensation systems, hiring and firing processes, work-related policies, etc.
However, these legacy policies and systems will lose all weight and authority as soon as Governance is defined that replaces or contradicts them. In addition, they may not be modified or added to in their legacy form. Anyone wishing to do so must first capture or otherwise empower the policy or system using the Governance Process defined in this Constitution.
A “Process Breakdown” occurs when a Circle shows a pattern of behavior that conflicts with the rules of this Constitution.
The Facilitator of a Circle may declare a Process Breakdown in the Circle if the participants in one of its Governance Meetings fail to successfully process a Proposal, even after a reasonably long time is spent trying to do so. If the Proposer specially requested that Governance Meeting specifically for processing that Proposal, then the Proposer may also declare a Process Breakdown in this case.
The Facilitator of a Circle may declare a Process Breakdown within that Circle or one of its Sub-Circles upon discovering a pattern of behavior or outputs within the Sub-Circle that conflict with the rules of this Constitution. However, if that Facilitator is also the Lead Link or Facilitator of a Sub-Circle, then for that Sub-Circle the Secretary or Rep Link of its Super-Circle may also make this declaration.
Whenever an authorized party declares a Process Breakdown within a Circle, the following occurs:
- (a) the Facilitator of the Super-Circle gains a Project to restore due-process within the Circle; and
- (b) the Facilitator of the Super-Circle gains the authority to take over as Facilitator or Secretary of the Circle, or to appoint someone else to do so; and
- (c) the Facilitator of the Circle gains the authority to judge the accuracy of any arguments presented to validate Proposals or Objections within the Circle’s Governance Process.
These authorities are temporary and cease as soon as the Facilitator of the Super-Circle concludes that due process has been restored within the Circle.
A Process Breakdown of one Circle may not be considered a Process Breakdown of its Super-Circle, as long as the Super-Circle’s Facilitator is working to resolve the Process Breakdown promptly and diligently.
However, if the Process Breakdown is not resolved within a reasonable timeframe, then the Facilitator of any Super-Circle that ultimately contains the offending Circle may declare a Process Breakdown within the offending Circle’s Super-Circle as well.
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.