{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213/events","html_url":"https://github.com/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213","id":283213498,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWUyODMyMTM0OTg=","number":213,"title":"Re-order sequence of objection criteria ?","user":{"login":"chrcowan","id":16691633,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjE2NjkxNjMz","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/16691633?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan","html_url":"https://github.com/chrcowan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":213745438,"node_id":"MDU6TGFiZWwyMTM3NDU0Mzg=","url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c","default":true}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":7,"created_at":"2017-12-19T12:36:06Z","updated_at":"2018-06-29T15:45:28Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"**[continuing the conversation from a rejected pull request]** \r\n\r\nCurious to hear others' thoughts on this. I proposed reordering the objection validity criteria in 3.2.4, to assist Facilitators in asking the most helpful test questions earlier. My proposed order is: \r\n\r\n1. The objection is a reason about harm\r\n2. The objection is based on a role the objector fills (previously 4th)\r\n3. The objection is about the proposal (previously 2nd)\r\n4. The objection isn't predictive (previously 3rd)\r\n\r\n__Note:_ I totally get that the questions can be asked in any order, regardless of how they are ordered in the constitution, so in a way this is a small point. However, I have a role that designs the meeting cards, and since I plan on re-ordering the questions on the cards, I would like them to mirror how the questions are ordered in the constitution._  \r\n\r\nIn my experience, it's far more common for an objection to be invalidated because it doesn't fit one of the objector's roles, rather than because it's predictive. It is also a more important learning point (\"Is the tension felt in a role you fill?\") for early practice. However, the current version of the Constitution sequences the criteria in such a way that many Facilitators ask the third predictive question (and all of its nuanced explanations) when if the Facilitator had just asked the role-based question, it would have likely been invalidated. So, I'm proposing a simple re-ordering of the criteria to make it easier for Facilitators to apply the test questions. That change was rejected, but I'm not yet satisfied with the reasoning, so I wanted to put it out to a larger group. \r\n\r\n**[For context] Brian's first response:** \r\n@chrcowan I don't think this change makes sense; if someone is going through the questions in order with a new group, it's more powerful to leave the role one to last, even if it's the most likely to identify an invalid objection - there's lots of learning that happens by going through the other questions, and when an objection is not valid because of multiple reasons, it's more powerful to catch it with one of the other questions over the role one.\r\n\r\n**My response to that:** \r\n@brianjrobertson I disagree that the learning is served by going through the other questions first. My reasoning for changing the sequence is the same as used for highlighting, \"name the role\" as an early habit -- because understanding differentiation makes it easier to understand lots of other things. In my experience (thinking of assessments particularly), asking the questions for the sake of asking the questions doesn't serve the learning because it's divorced from the actual needs of the situation. Being on that side of things as a role-player makes it clear -- ask the most relevant questions as soon as possible. Otherwise, objections/objection testing seems much more like a fun game the facilitator is playing rather than actually helping me process my tension (i.e. objection).\r\n\r\n**Brian's last response:** \r\n@chrcowan - I do see the value you're pointing to and I agree with you, but I prioritize it significantly lower in importance than the value served by the current order, which is that other questions often have the opportunity to invalidate an objection before that question does (when someone goes in order, which novice facilitators often do). When other questions invalidate an objection in early practice, appreciation for Holacracy increases and resistance decreases; when that role-based question does, it's exactly the opposite. If you want to discuss/pitch further, please open an Issue rather than this comment thread on a submission, so others can more easily find it and weigh in.\r\n\r\nSo, my response to that now is this: \r\nI can see Brian's point when he is training or working with clients, because his skill level at being able to effectively coach around the paradigm-shifting issues like \"sense & respond vs. predict & control\" used in criteria 3, or \"one tension at a time\"/consensus-seeking used in criteria 2, may make those points more helpful (and feel somehow less awkward), but I find that the learning around differentiation (role vs. people) is more requisite for early practice, especially as it is reinforced during early tacticals) and therefor the role-based question should be asked earlier.   \r\n\r\nThoughts? Reactions? \r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/comments/401394419","html_url":"https://github.com/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213#issuecomment-401394419","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution/issues/213","id":401394419,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDQwMTM5NDQxOQ==","user":{"login":"chrcowan","id":16691633,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjE2NjkxNjMz","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/16691633?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan","html_url":"https://github.com/chrcowan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/chrcowan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-06-29T15:45:28Z","updated_at":"2018-06-29T15:45:28Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"@margauxchiquet Agreed. If we could avoid suggesting an order that might be ideal, but I don't think we'll ever know. These things (including Holacracy) can only be _understood_ all together, but they can only be _communicated_ one-at-a-time."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"chrcowan"}}