General Company Governance Meeting Minutes

A "Service Accountability" is defined as: An Accountability assigned to Role held by a Person (the “Service Provider”) for providing a specified service or performing a specified activity in support of the aims or goals of one or more other Roles upon request of a Person filling such a Role (each a “Service Requester”).

Service Accountabilities within the GCC shall be governed by the policies documented here.

Each role assignment made within this circle and all sub-circles must have a "Focus Cap" specified along with the assignment, representing the max percentage of a full-time focus desired from that role-filler for that assignment.This policy defines a new type of currency for the organization, called "Attention Points" (or AP's for short). Attention Points will ultimately get allocated to a role, to "fund" the role with partner attention. A role allocated 100 Attention Points indicates the ideal attention for that role equals one full-focus partner in total; 200 AP's means the ideal attention is that of two full-focus partners, while 50 means the ideal is half of a full-focus partner's attention.

No Partner may dedicate more Focus Time to a role assignment on a sustained, ongoing basis than the Focus Cap allows, unless a temporary exception is made by that circle's Lead Link. This shall not prevent Partners from temporarily dedicating more focus than the Focus Cap allows, provided the average focus over a reasonably representative time horizon is expected to stay below the Focus Cap.No partner may dedicate more focus to a role on a sustained, ongoing basis than is called for by the allocated Attention Points. Further, if a partner has more than his/her full-focus worth of role assignments in total, the number of AP's associated with each assignment should be interpreted as a rough relative prioritization for how to split attention across roles; however, any conflicting prioritizations shall overrule this one (e.g. explicit prioritizations given by a relevant Lead Link or other prioritization role/system). For the purpose of these calculations, if a role is multi-filled, the Attention Points allocated to the role are considered to be evenly divided across the role-fillers, unless otherwise specified by whomever assigns people into that role.

The Lead Link of a circle may change the Focus Cap for any assignment within the circle anytime, provided there are no Objections to the proposed change from that circle's Rep Link. However, as long as the Lead Link makes a good-faith effort to integrate Objections raised by the Rep Link, they may still change a Focus Cap even in the absence of integration if the need for a change was triggered by a reduction in partner focus available to that circle.Only the Lead Link of the circle adopting this policy may create new Attention Points, and once created they become a resource of the circle, similar to a cash budget. The partner or role that owns/controls Attention Points may allocate them to a role to fund desired attention within the role, or may transfer them to another partner or role to so allocate. Once allocated to a role/circle, Attention Points may be unallocated and reallocated by whatever role/partner allocated them in the first place.

Per the Board-specified Constitution amendment, the following "Strategy Meeting" process shall be used by each circle as the only method to define Strategies for that circle, unless both Lead Link and Rep Link agree to add or change a Strategy outside of a Strategy Meeting. This meeting does not count as a Governance Meeting, unless reasonable notice has been given per the Constitution's requirement.

Strategy Meeting Process:

1. Check-in Round
2. Orientation: Review Purpose, Scope, & Accountabilities of Circle, and any Strategies of Super-Circle

3. a) Each participant individually and silently reflects, captures, and posts notes covering:
   i) What was done as a result of the previous Strategy
   ii) Key facts & events for the circle; external changes, opportunities, trends, data, etc.
   b) Participants collectively organize individual notes into related/useful groupings
   c) Facilitator focuses on each grouping one at a time; participants describe/clarify key notes they've added and share reflections; Facilitator captures any tensions that surface on a separate list.

4. Strategy Generation:
   a) Surface ideas: "What might make sense to emphasize operationally to address these Tensions?". Participants capture ideas individually, then post and describe each.
   b) Discuss to converge: "What Strategy should guide our decision making? What should we emphasize?"
   c) Lead Link proposes one or more Strategies; process proposal via IDM

5. a) Each participant reflects upon & captures Projects, Next-Actions, and/or Tensions they will process from each of their Roles to enact the Strategies
   b) Each participant shares what (tensions, actions, projects, etc.) they've captured, with captured to process in a round, if anything
   c) A space to is allowed to solicit feedback from others and for others to request further Projects/Next-Actions of their Roles

6. Closing Round